`


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

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Spotlight on A-G as he makes stand on ‘Islam v human rights’

Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali was the presiding Court of Appeal judge in the Allah case, which set aside the High Court judgment that allowed the Catholic Church to use the word 'Allah' in its weekly newspaper, Herald. – The Malaysian Insider pic, August 12, 2015.Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali was the presiding Court of Appeal judge in the Allah case, which set aside the High Court judgment that allowed the Catholic Church to use the word 'Allah' in its weekly newspaper, Herald. – The Malaysian Insider pic, August 12, 2015.New Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali will have to make his stand known tomorrow – whether Islamic law takes precedence over human rights – when he appears as intervener in the case of a non-Muslim lawyer fighting for her right to practice Shariah law.
The A-G, who is the chief legal adviser to Putrajaya, is coming in as intervener as constitutional issues are being raised in this case, and he would have to take a position.
The case involved the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Council (MAIWP) who is attempting to stop Victoria Jayaseele Martin from practising Islamic law in the Shariah court.
Lawyer Mohd Hanif Khatri Abdulla, who is appearing for MAIWP said this was a new point of monumental constitutional importance to be raised by the religous authorities to stop Martin from practising in the Shariah court.
A five-man bench led by Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria will hear the case tomorrow.

Apandi, the presiding Court of Appeal judge in the Allah case, which set aside the High Court judgment that allowed the Catholic Church to use the word "Allah" in its weekly newspaper, Herald, had observed that the constitution placed Islam in the third position in the order of precedence.
Basic human rights provisions are in Part 11 of the Malaysian constitution and are confined between Articles 5 and 13.
Apandi said that Islam is the religion of the Federation but other religions may be practised in "peace and harmony".
 
"It is my judgment that the purpose and intention of the insertion of the words 'in peace and harmony' in Article 3 (1) is to protect the sanctity of Islam and also to insulate against any threat faced by the religion," he had said in the ruling.
  
That ruling was upheld by the Federal Court when it refused to grant leave to appeal by the church.
Apandi was promoted to the Federal Court last year.
Lawyer Edmund Bon (pic, left) said the A-G, as guardian of public interest, should take into consideration the feelings of all Malaysians.
  
"Hopefully, the lawyers appearing for Putrajaya will put forward the argument that Islam is also in consonant with human rights," he told The Malaysian Insider.
Bon, however, said the final determination of this case would be decided by the panel of judges on how they interpret the Articles in the constitution.
"The judges have taken the oath of office to protect and preserve the constitution and hopefully they will interpret the national charter in a broad manner," he said.
MAIWP's position means that it does not hold the constitution as being secular in nature.
The legal question to be argued was whether Rule 10 of the Rules of the Shariah Lawyers 1993 were against Articles 5, 8 and 10 of the Federal Constitution.
In a landmark ruling, a three-man appellate court on June 21, 2013, unanimously ruled that non-Muslims were eligible to practise as Shariah lawyers in the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan.
Tan Sri Abu Samah Nordin, who led the bench then, said that MAIWP's refusal to process an application of a non-Muslim lawyer to practise as a Shariah lawyer was an act that exceeded its legal powers.
Samah, now a Federal Court judge, said Section 59 (1) of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 clearly stated that "any person" with sufficient knowledge in Islamic law may be appointed as Shariah lawyer.
Section 59 (2) gives the power to the council to make rules about the qualification of Shariah lawyers.
"If the intention is to prohibit non-Muslims from appearing in a Shariah court, it should be expressly stated in the legislation," he said in allowing the appeal by Martin.
Martin's counsel, Ranjit Singh, had told the Court of Appeal that his client's application to appear in the religious court was not given due process by the religious council.
Martin filed a judicial review application in 2010 and sought an order to compel the council to allow her to practise as a Shariah lawyer in Kuala Lumpur.
She also wants the court to issue a declaration that Rule 10, which allows only Muslims to be accepted as Shariah lawyers, is against the Federal Constitution.
The High Court dismissed her application in 2011.
Despite her victory in the Court of Appeal, Martin cannot appear in the Shariah court as the council was given a stay from processing her application.
- TMI

No comments:

Post a Comment

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