logo
SIS Forum appeal not concerned with substantive beliefs, doctrine of Islamic faith, says Federal Court

SIS Forum appeal not concerned with substantive beliefs, doctrine of Islamic faith, says Federal Court

The Star21-06-2025
PUTRAJAYA: The appeal by Sisters in Islam (SIS) Forum (Malaysia) does not concern the substantive beliefs in the religion of Islam, its mandates or doctrines relating to the Islamic faith but relates to the exercise of legal powers by certain state authorities, says the Federal Court in its judgment.
Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said the challenge only concerned the review of the Selangor State Fatwa Committee, the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) and the Selangor government's exercise of certain powers under the law, which is distinct from the substance and contents of their decisions.
"While it concerns a certain fatwa (religious edict), the case has neither to do with the substantive beliefs held in the religion of Islam nor does it have anything to do with the administration of the substantive aspects of the religion of Islam," she said in the 40-page majority judgment.
The top judge said in all civilised democracies with independent judiciaries, it is routine for the executive's decisions to be subjected to judicial review and in most cases, the subject matter of the exercise of discretion in the plaint is not the main issue rather the manner in which the decision was made.
On Thursday (June 19), the Federal Court bench, in a 3-1 majority ruling, held that the 2014 fatwa issued by the Selangor State Fatwa Committee and gazetted by the Selangor state government is valid, but only insofar as it applies to individuals, not companies.
The court ruled that a fatwa cannot be imposed on an organisation like SIS Forum as it is not capable of professing a religion.
The ruling partially allowed the appeal by SIS Forum and its co-founder Zainah Mahfoozah Anwar to quash the 2014 fatwa, which had declared the group as deviating from Islamic teachings.
In the written judgment released on the judiciary's website, Justice Tengku Maimun explained that the Selangor state government and the religious bodies are part of the executive branch and are empowered by the Federal Constitution and laws passed by the Selangor state legislative assembly (SLA).
"The fact that they deal with matters pertaining to Islamic faith, dogma and doctrine - are beside the point and these matters are, in any event, not within our purview (of the Civil Court)," she said.
Justice Tengku Maimun said that under Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, the Shariah Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matters within their scope. However, if the Shariah Courts act beyond their jurisdiction, they remain subject to judicial review by the Superior Courts.
She reiterated that SIS Forum's legal challenge did not question the contents of the fatwa but the way it affected them.
This, she said, involved constitutional importance and administrative law, which is for the Superior Courts to determine.
The Chief Justice also reminded all judges that judgments of the Federal Court, unless overruled by a later decision of the same court, are binding and failure to abide by them is an affront to the administration of the justice system.
In the judgment, Tengku Maimun also said a fatwa, once gazetted, carries the force of law and is not mere suggestion, and it is binding on all Muslims in the state and the Shariah Courts. - Bernama
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'No constitutional crisis', AGC dismisses call for RCI on judicial appointments
'No constitutional crisis', AGC dismisses call for RCI on judicial appointments

The Star

time39 minutes ago

  • The Star

'No constitutional crisis', AGC dismisses call for RCI on judicial appointments

PETALING JAYA: There is no need for a royal commision of inquiry (RCI) nor an investigation by a parliamentary select committee on the alleged irregularities in judicial appointments, says the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) as the situation does not constitute a constitutional crisis. In a statement on Tuesday (July 8), the AGC confirmed that the process is proceeding in accordance with the Federal Constitution. More to come Follow us on our official WhatsApp channel for breaking news alerts and key updates!

[UPDATED] AGC: Allegations of irregularities in judicial appointments unfounded, speculative
[UPDATED] AGC: Allegations of irregularities in judicial appointments unfounded, speculative

New Straits Times

time42 minutes ago

  • New Straits Times

[UPDATED] AGC: Allegations of irregularities in judicial appointments unfounded, speculative

KUALA LUMPUR: The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) has dismissed allegations of irregularities and delays in judicial appointments, saying that such claims must be assessed within the framework of the Federal Constitution. Responding to public statements made by Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli and several other PKR members of Parliament yesterday (July 7), the AGC said the prime minister cannot be viewed merely as a conduit for recommendations from any party, as he holds a constitutional responsibility to advise the King on judicial appointments. This duty, the statement said, is essential to safeguard the independence, credibility and integrity of the judiciary. The AGC added that the King had consented to the appointment of several High Court and Court of Appeal judges last month, but that these appointments were still undergoing necessary formalities. "Such appointments must be conducted with proper order and decorum," it said. Addressing claims that a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) meeting had been convened without sufficient notice, the AGC said that under Section 13(2) of the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 (Act 695), the JAC is empowered to regulate its own procedures. In urgent circumstances, meetings can proceed with short notice if all members agree. "Procedural matters should not invalidate the JAC's deliberations unless there is clear evidence of mala fide intent or prejudice," it added. The AGC also addressed a serious allegation involving a Federal Court judge allegedly influencing judicial decisions and judge reassignments. It said deliberations within the JAC are legally protected and remain confidential, and such claims cannot be equated with proven misconduct or taken as a threat to judicial independence. "These remain premature and purely speculative allegations," it said. The AGC added that comparisons with the 2007 VK Lingam case were unwarranted, as that case involved clear evidence of interference, which led to the formation of a royal commission of inquiry (RCI). "In contrast, the current situation is based merely on unsubstantiated claims," the AGC said. Yesterday (July 7), nine PKR MPs called for an RCI to investigate what they claimed were alleged irregularities in the appointment of senior judges, including the Chief Justice. He claimed that nominations for the positions of Chief Justice and President of the Court of Appeal had already been decided by the JAC before the retirement of Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat and submitted to the prime minister, but the appointments were not made, resulting in the current vacancies. He also claimed a JAC meeting was called last Friday without adhering to the required 10-day notice period, allegedly to renominate candidates for the vacant positions. Led by Pandan MP and former PKR deputy president Rafizi, the group said they would formally request that proceedings and an inquiry be conducted by the Parliamentary Special Select Committee on Human Rights, Elections and Institutional Reform, including top government officials to testify. "The Parliament, as an independent legislative body, must play a key role in safeguarding the independence of the judiciary," he said in a special press conference. Rafizi outlined four issues surrounding the judicial appointment controversy which are now circulating in the public domain that require clarification from the government. This includes that in the appointment of new judges (whether to the High Court, Court of Appeal, or Federal Court), nominations submitted by the JAC to the government were not acted upon in a timely manner, leading to urgent vacancies.

High Court sets Aug 7 to decide next steps in Sabah's 40% revenue case
High Court sets Aug 7 to decide next steps in Sabah's 40% revenue case

The Star

timean hour ago

  • The Star

High Court sets Aug 7 to decide next steps in Sabah's 40% revenue case

KOTA KINABALU: The High Court has fixed Aug 7 for an online case management (e-review) to determine the next course of action in the judicial review application over Sabah's constitutional entitlement to 40% of revenue derived from the state. The date was set by High Court judge Justice Datuk Celestina Stuel Galid on Monday (July 7), following the conclusion of the substantive hearing of the case's merits. Justice Stuel informed the parties that while courts typically deliver a decision within four weeks of final submissions, this case warranted an exception because of its complexity. ALSO READ: Sabah Law Society wins leave to pursue state's 40% constitutional entitlement review She said more time was needed to fully consider the voluminous documents and arguments presented. During the upcoming e-review, the court will decide whether or not further clarification is needed. If not, a date will be fixed for the delivery of the court's judgment. The judicial review was initiated by the Sabah Law Society (SLS) in June 2022, when it filed for leave to challenge the Federal Government's alleged failure to uphold Sabah's revenue rights under the Federal Constitution. In November 2022, the High Court granted leave for the judicial review to proceed, but the Federal Government's appeal to the Court of Appeal was unanimously dismissed in June last year. ALSO READ: Sabah's 40% revenue rights: SLS to get its day in court after AG's appeal dismissed The matter escalated when the Federal Government sought leave to appeal to the Federal Court, which was again rejected unanimously in October. This returned the case to the High Court for a full hearing on its substantive merits. SLS is represented by lead counsel Dr David Fung, with lawyers Jeyan Marimuttu, Janice Lim, and Grace Liew. The Federal Government is represented by Senior Federal Counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly @ Arwi, Nurhafizza Azizan and Azza Azmi, and Federal Counsel M. Kogilam Bigai and Nur Atirah Aiman Rahim. Representing the Sabah government are state Attorney General Datuk Brenndon Soh, with Devina Teo and Roland Alik. ALSO READ: Sabah govt still a party in SLS bid for 40% revenue rights, says lawyer On Monday morning, several state assemblymen took time off from the ongoing legislative assembly sitting to attend court. Among those present were former chief ministers Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal and Datuk Yong Teck Lee, and assemblymen Datuk Darell Leiking (Moyog), Assaffal P. Alian (Tungku), Calvin Chong (Elopura) and Justin Wong (Sri Tanjong). Also in attendance were former Kota Kinabalu MP Datuk Jimmy Wong Sze Phin and Science, Technology and Innovation Ministry permanent secretary Datuk Mohd Hanafiah Mohd Kassim. Deputy Chief Minister Datuk Seri Dr Jeffrey Kitingan attended the afternoon session.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store