`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Friday, July 11, 2014

'Bar Council's obtuse claim insults federal judges'


Bar Council president Christopher Leong has insulted Federal Court judges by deeming all those who dismiss the need for the consent of both parents in the conversion of minors as "obtuse", the Association of Muslim Lawyers (PPMM) said today.

PPMM president Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar (left) said Leong, in making his stand, had ignored a Federal Court decision in December 2007 in which at least two judges ruled in favour of unilateral conversions.

Zainul said in the case of Subashini Rajasingam vs Saravanan Thangathoray, the word ‘parent’ in Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution was taken to mean either one parent, be it the mother or father, and not both.

This judgment was handed down by judges Nik Hashim Nik Abdul Rahman and Azmel Maamor.

Zainul said this in reference to the statement made by Leong last month that Article 12(4), which should be read with Article 160 and the 11th Schedule of the constitution, was clear that the consent of both parents are needed to determine a minor's religion and those unclear on this were "obtuse"

Leong urged the government to make renewed efforts to amend the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 to make this position clear, as unilateral conversion of minors is unconstitutional.

"PPMM  is of the opinion that the word ‘obtuse’ is an insult to the courts.

"Even though PPMM understands that anyone can criticise the opinions of a court if he or she disagrees with it, but to insult a court decision is an extreme action. What more when it comes from the head of the Bar Council," Zainul Rijal said in a press statement today.

Leong was commenting on the government's refusal to enforce respective civil court decisions in the interfaith custody cases involving S Deepa and M Indira Gandhi (right, in picture).

He went on to urge the Attorney-General's Chambers to make its stand firm as both the non-Muslim mothers had been awarded custody.

However, PPMM countered that Leong was not the authority on matters pertaining to the Federal Constitution, while federal judges were, and so their decisions should not be so openly challenged.

"PPMM advises Leong and the Bar Council to look again at the Bar's true function and not be confused. The Federal Court has been tasked to interpret the constitution and not the Bar Council," Zainul said, adding that Leong should apologise for his statement.

He said there were proper channels to protest court rulings and that lawyers have no right to pick and choose which rulings they would or would not follow.

Furthermore, PPMM said, Leong's statement could be considered seditious under the Sedition Act 1948, for it posed a challenge to authorities and could draw hate and insult towards the implementation of justice in Malaysia.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.