Wan Farid appointed chief justice, oath taking ceremony on July 28
The Office of the Chief Registrar of the Federal Court announced that the appointment was made pursuant to Clause (1) of Article 122B of the Federal Constitution. His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong gave his royal assent following the advice of the prime minister and consultation with the Conference of Rulers.
The statement, issued at midnight, also confirmed...
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Ex-soldier loses appeal over dismissal for refusing Covid-19 jab
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal today dismissed a former soldier's appeal against his termination from the Malaysian Armed Forces for refusing the Covid-19 vaccination. The three-member bench led by Justice Datuk Azimah Omar ruled that there was no illegality or procedural impropriety on the part of the respondents in dismissing Wan Ramli Wan Seman from service. "The court is of the view that the appeal is without merit and therefore, dismissed," she said. No order as to costs was made. Sitting with her were Justices Datuk Wong Kian Kheong and Datuk Ismail Brahim. Wan Ramli, 43, was appealing against the High Court's 2023 dismissal of his judicial review challenging the decision of the respondents. In his judicial review, Wan Ramli had named Lt-Col Sharull Hesham Md Yasin, Lt Mohamad Azammunir Mohd Ashri, Army Chief General Tan Sri Zamrose Mohd Zain, the Malaysian Armed Forces, and the Malaysian Government as respondents. He sought a certiorari order to quash the termination letter dated Aug 4, 2021, which discharged him from service, and a declaration that the discharge letter was null and void. He claimed that the dishonourable discharge had caused him to lose his right to a pension under Article 147 of the Federal Constitution. Wan Ramli also argued that his dismissal was invalid as it was disproportionate in the circumstances, oppressive, irrational, unreasonable, amounted to unlawful discrimination, and took into account irrelevant considerations. Then High Court judge Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid (now a Court of Appeal judge) had ruled that the decision to discharge Wan Ramli was lawful and not tainted with illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. At today's hearing, Wan Ramli was represented by lawyer Hafiz Norkhan, while senior federal counsel Nurhafizza Azizan and federal counsel Solehheen Mohammad Zaki appeared for the respondents.
New Straits Times
5 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Twins fail in civil court bid to exit Islam
SHAH ALAM: The High Court here has dismissed a suit filed by 26-year-old twin sisters seeking to renounce Islam. Judicial Commissioner Rozi Bainon ruled that the matter falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court, as it involves questions of faith, conversion, and Islamic legal status. The plaintiffs claimed they were forced to recite the syahadah and convert to Islam at the age of 14 by their mother, who had embraced the religion several years earlier. They argued that the conversion was done without their consent or understanding and maintained that they had never lived as Muslims nor professed the faith. Their mother, who embraced Islam in 2007, admitted in court via affidavit that she had forced the children to convert, and now regretted the decision. The plaintiffs also stated that they continued to practise Chinese religious customs and identified with their ancestral beliefs. The plaintiffs filed an originating summons in December last year by naming the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) and the Selangor state government as defendants. The defendants argued that the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court as provided under Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. The defendants submitted that any claim challenging the validity of conversion to Islam, particularly involving the syahadah recitation and questions of faith, must be addressed according to Islamic law and determined by the Syariah Court. Mais said the plaintiffs had already acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court when they previously filed two suits there in 2023, seeking declarations that they were no longer Muslims. The suits, however, were later withdrawn without explanation. Mais viewed the subsequent filing of the present civil action as an abuse of court process and a form of "court shopping." The defendants stressed that the plaintiffs remained Muslims in the eyes of the law unless and until a valid renunciation is recognised through the proper Syariah legal process. The court, agreeing with the defendants' submissions, ruled that although the plaintiffs now claimed they never embraced Islam voluntarily, the validity of their conversion must be determined under Islamic law. The court said that civil courts cannot usurp the role of the Syariah Court in determining issues related to aqidah (faith) and religious identity, especially where there is no constitutional challenge or judicial review involved. Rozi stressed that the absence of a Syariah Court declaration meant their status as Muslims remained intact. "The civil court is not the proper forum for such a declaration. The matter of religious status must be brought before the Syariah Court. "The subject matter of this suit touches directly on questions of faith and religious identity, matters which the Federal Constitution places squarely within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court. "Plaintiffs cannot simply abandon one court and turn to another in search of a more favourable outcome. "This amounts to court shopping and is a misuse of judicial process," she said in her ground of judgment dated yesterday. Lawyers Muhammad Firdaus Danial Tan and Crystal Jan Wong Mae appeared for the plaintiffs. Mais was represented by Majdah Muda while State assistant legal advisor Nurul Izzah Abdul Mutalib appeared for the state government.
The Sun
8 hours ago
- The Sun
Court of Appeal dismisses ex-soldier's challenge over COVID-19 vaccine refusal
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal today rejected a former soldier's bid to challenge his discharge from the Malaysian Armed Forces for refusing the COVID-19 vaccination. A three-judge panel, led by Justice Datuk Azimah Omar, ruled that the termination was lawful and free from procedural flaws. Justice Azimah stated, 'The court is of the view that the appeal is without merit and therefore, dismissed.' No costs were awarded. The bench included Justices Datuk Wong Kian Kheong and Datuk Ismail Brahim. Wan Ramli Wan Seman, 43, had filed a judicial review against his 2021 termination, naming military officials and the government as respondents. He sought to nullify his discharge letter, arguing it deprived him of pension rights under the Federal Constitution. The High Court previously ruled that the termination followed legal procedures and was not irrational or discriminatory. Wan Ramli's lawyer, Hafiz Norkhan, represented him in the appeal, while federal counsel defended the respondents. – Bernama
