“Muslims intending to renounce Islam would have to go to the syariah court,” he said.
The recent ruling stemmed from a 34-year-old woman’s attempt to appeal a Court of Appeal decision from last year, which was denied by a 2-1 majority in the Federal Court last Monday (Feb 12).
Justice Hasnah Hashim, chairing the bench, cited Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, stating that leave for appeal could only be granted if novel constitutional or legal questions of public importance were raised.
Under the provision, leave is granted only if there are novel constitutional or legal questions of public importance raised for the first time.
“So, the Federal Court is quite right, as the law is quite settled. There is no confusion,” he added.
Moreover, Haniff refuted claims by lawyer Fahri Azzat that the decision infringed upon the woman’s constitutional right to freedom of religion, asserting that Syariah courts do allow renunciations (murtad) under stringent criteria.
“Yes, (it is) very rare, but I was informed by syariah law practitioners that it has been allowed. If the requirements for renunciation are satisfied, the state religious courts will give the order sought.”
Contrary to claims challenging the jurisdiction of Syariah courts, another legal expert highlighted the 2018 Federal Court ruling in M Indira Gandhi v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak, underscoring the constitutional separation of powers between civil and Syariah courts.
“Article 121(1A) of the constitution was included in 1988 as a shield to prevent the civil courts from having to deal with renunciation cases as they come under the jurisdiction of syariah courts,” said the lawyer who spoke on condition of anonymity.
While some legal practitioners expressed shock at the Federal Court’s denial of leave for appeal, citing discrepancies in the courts’ status, others highlighted the practical implications of maintaining social and public order in a Muslim-majority nation.
“The present constitutional arrangement in this Muslim majority nation will ensure social and public order is maintained,” he said, adding there would be chaos if the civil court declares it has jurisdiction to hear applications to exit Islam.
The case in question involved a woman who sought to renounce Islam, alleging that she never practiced the faith and wished to embrace Buddhism.
Despite her claims, the Syariah court mandated counselling sessions instead of granting her request. Subsequent appeals proved futile, prompting her to seek intervention from civil courts, invoking Article 11’s protection of religious freedom.
However, the Federal Court’s decision underscores the preeminence of Syariah courts in adjudicating matters of Islamic faith, reiterating the judiciary’s commitment to upholding Malaysia’s constitutional framework. – Feb 14, 2024
Main photo credit: Bloomberg
