The Civil courts (The High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court) trumps Shariah courts …

Justice Lee Swee Seng: The High Court is superior in nature to the Syariah Court

Shariah courts not on equal footing with civil courts, says Federal Court

zzzfed.jpg

PETALING JAYA: Civil court judges have power and jurisdiction to interpret the constitution, laws and review decisions of public authorities as their appointments come under the Federal Constitution, the Federal Court said.

On the contrary, Justice Zainun Ali said, Shariah Court judges were not on equal footing with the judges in the superior courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court) as the former were appointed by the rulers of the respective states after consultation with the relevant state religious councils.

Notably, she said, shariah courts were not constituted in accordance with the provisions of Part IX of the Federal Constitution entitled “The Judiciary.”

“The constitutional safeguards for judicial independence, including the mechanism for the qualifications, appointment, removal, security of tenure and remuneration of judges, do not apply in respect of shariah courts,” Zainun said in her 101-page judgment which set aside the conversion certificates of kindergarten teacher M Indira Gandhi’s children.

Superior court judges are appointed by the Yang di Pertuan Agong on the advice of the prime minister after consulting the Conference of Rulers.

It is also compulsory for these judges to take their judicial oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution.

Zainun said it was evident from the marked differences in the establishment and constitution of the civil and shariah courts that the two courts operated on a different footing altogether.

“Thus the perception that both courts (civil courts and shariah courts) should exercise a mutually reciprocal policy of non-interference may be somewhat misconceived and premised on an erroneous understanding of the constitutional framework in Malaysia,” she said.

Zainun said both clauses (1) and (1A) of Article 121 of the Federal Constitution only illustrated the respective regimes in which each court operated.

“What they (clauses (1) and (1A) Article 121 illustrate is that both the civil and shariah courts co-exist in their respective spheres, even if they are dissimilar in the extent of their powers and jurisdiction, in that the civil courts are possessed of powers, fundamental and intrinsic, as outlined in the constitution,” she said.

She said it was the civil courts that were seised with jurisdiction and inherent powers to review decisions of public authorities, interpret the constitution and laws passed by parliament and state legislatures.

In its landmark ruling on Monday, the Federal Court decreed that the civil courts had jurisdiction to hear cases when aggrieved parties questioned any conversion to Islam.
.

The five-man bench was chaired by Court of Appeal president Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, and included justices Richard Malanjun, Zainun Ali, Abu Samah Nordin and Ramly Ali.

Zainun delivered the unanimous judgment.

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2018/01/31/shariah-courts-not-on-equal-footing-with-civil-courts-says-federal-court/

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s