House arrest does not mean living with spouse or living freely

House arrest does not equate to living with a spouse or enjoying complete freedom, according to legal expert Datuk Shamsuddin Nawawi. Inmates under house arrest continue to face rules and restrictions akin to those enforced in prison. There appears to be a widespread misconception among the general public that prisoners under house arrest can live their lives freely, just like any other individual.

This misunderstanding is particularly prevalent regarding the living arrangements of spouses and family members of accused individuals.

Shamsuddin clarified that Section 3 of the Prisons Act 1995 permits the minister to designate a house, building, enclosure, or any part of it as a prison, should the need arise. Section 4 of the same Act also stipulates that any building that was operating as a prison prior to the Act's implementation is considered a prison under the Act.

In the case of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, the house designated as his residence for house arrest does not necessarily have to be his current dwelling. Instead, any building deemed suitable by prison officers, such as a National Service Training Programme camp, can be used.

For a house to be considered a prison under house arrest, it must maintain its prison-like nature and be supervised by prison officers at all times. Prisoners must also undergo inspection procedures and receive amenities, including food and other provisions, akin to those provided in a typical prison setting. The chosen house designated as a prison must undergo a transformation to function as a prison.

The only potential advantage could be the larger size of the building, but the overall activities, rules, and facilities would remain similar to those enforced in a prison.