Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia - Various quarters have expressed support for the Cabinet’s view that the civil court should not brush aside cases pertaining to the status of converts by saying it has no jurisdiction.
“Everyone deserves a forum to be heard and nobody should be told that he or she has no remedy,” said Syariah lawyer Bazeer Alam Mydin Meera.
Bazeer said the Government should review Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution, which had since 1988 prohibited the civil court from having jurisdiction over Syariah court matters.
He said the review was necessary to find out if it had brought any benefit or negative effect to the public, especially in cases involving religion dispute.
“We need a system in place which allows both Muslims and non–Muslims to be heard.”
On Friday, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said the Cabinet felt that while the Syariah court had jurisdiction over cases where the status of a Muslim convert was in question, the right avenue for the issue to be resolved was through the civil court.
On Dec 28, the High Court ruled that it would not disturb the declaration that the late Mount Everest climber Sjn M. Moorthy was a Muslim because the matter was under the Syariah court’s jurisdiction. The ruling had drawn much attention as to the role of the civil court in such matters.
Said Bazeer: “We will have to look back at the constitution to address the problem.”
Civil lawyer Mohd Yusmadi Mohd Yusoff concurred, saying the matter should be dealt with constructively.
“A constitutional court should be set up to decide where the cases, especially those involving conversion, will be heard.”
Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism deputy president K. Pardip also said the Federal Constitution should be reviewed.
“There should be a clear definition of the Constitution because part of it seems to be vague, allowing some judges to take the easy way out,” he said.
Sisters In Islam legal officer Razlina Razali said such cases were not something new.
She felt the civil court should have intervened in Moorthy’s case, as it had done before in the previous cases.
“They cannot tell someone that there is no remedy. This issue must be resolved and not left in a limbo,” she said.