Former CJ questions why police still cannot locate Indira's daughter
The former chief justice said she was unsure why police had yet to recover Indira's daughter Prasana Diksa, despite the case ongoing for years.
"I personally think that there would be no obstacle for the police (stopping them from recovering the children).
"Yet, more than 10 years down the line, they have not been located and returned to their mother," she said during a dialogue session here on Tuesday (Aug 19) titled "The Sanctity of Malaysia's Federal Constitution: Threats, Solutions and Impact on National Governance."
Citing other high-profile cases, Tengku Maimun noted the police had successfully solved complex crimes, such as the murders of Sosilawati Lawiya and Altantuya Shaariibuu.
"In both instances, despite significant logistical challenges, the perpetrators were apprehended and convicted," she said.
She added that the judiciary's limitations in enforcing orders illustrate the separation of judicial and police responsibilities.
Tengku Maimun also brought up her dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeal, which supported the Ipoh High Court's decision to issue a mandamus order against the police. This order demands police action to recover the children, a decision later upheld by the Federal Court.
On Aug 11, the Court of Appeal postponed its decision in a RM100mil lawsuit filed by Indira against the Inspector-General of Police and three others concerning the alleged inaction against her ex-husband, Pathmanathan, over the abduction of her daughter, Prasana.
The court has scheduled Aug 25 for case management to set a date to deliver the decision.
Indira is appealing a High Court decision from June 28, 2024, which dismissed her lawsuit against the IGP, the police, the Home Ministry and the government, ruling that police used all available resources to locate Pathmanathan, also known as Muhammad Riduan.
Indira's lawsuit, filed on Oct 28, 2020, claimed the IGP deliberately disregarded the Federal Court's mandamus order, failing to take appropriate action to return Prasana. She asserted that the defendants' actions caused her prolonged separation from her daughter.
In 2009, Pathmanathan unilaterally converted his three children to Islam and obtained custody from the Syariah Court.
In 2016, the Federal Court affirmed a High Court mandamus order to apprehend Pathmanathan and return Prasana to her mother.
The apex court ruled in 2018 that the unilateral conversion was null and void, and the Ipoh High Court granted full custody to Indira in 2010.
Prasana was 11 months old when taken and turned 17 this year. Indira's two other children were returned to her in 2010.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
30 minutes ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Unconstitutional to criminalise offensive speech made online, rules court
The Court of Appeal ruled that the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in the previous iteration of Section 233 of the CMA violates the Federal Constitution. PUTRAJAYA : The Court of Appeal has unanimously struck down as unconstitutional the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in the previous iteration of Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA), which criminalises the online transmission of offensive comments. Justice Lee Swee Seng said the words violated Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution, read together with Article 8. He also said that a charge of offending and annoying a third party could not be construed as going against public order. 'We find that the impugned words of 'offensive' and 'annoy' are not a permissible restriction to the freedom of expression under our Federal Constitution. 'We therefore strike down that particular provision as constituting an offence (against the constitution),' he said in partly allowing the appeal by activist Heidy Quah to nullify the previous version of Section 233. Also on the panel hearing the appeal were Justices Hashim Hamzah and Azman Abdullah. The bench made no order as to costs as the issue at hand was a constitutional matter. Lee, who is now a Federal Court judge, said today's decision would have a prospective effect, meaning that parties in ongoing criminal proceedings under the old law could leave it to the trial judge to decide. The government passed an amendment to the CMA last year, adding the words 'grossly offensive' in constituting an offence. The amendment came into effect this February. Senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin appeared for the government, while lawyers Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, A Surendra and New Sin Yew represented Quah. Counsel Lim Wei Jiet held a watching brief for the Clooney Foundation for Justice and Suaram. The bench also directed Liew to file a formal application to stay the decision pending the government's filing of an appeal to the Federal Court. Lee said that in a society like Malaysia's, citizens are supposed to 'give space to one another' by appreciating and accommodating their views, thoughts and ideas on a range of topics. The judge said some might use loud and lambastic language to express their views, while others might take a more scholarly and subdued tone in agreeing to disagree. 'The virtual community has a way of restoring equilibrium and even equanimity when the line has been crossed. 'To create more offences in the virtual space would be a retrogressive step bordering on needless censorship just because some people's ideas may not be so palatable,' he said. He also said that Section 233 of the CMA provided no standards as to what amounted to offensive or what would amount to an intent to annoy. 'When all types of speech could potentially be offensive if a single person finds it so, then freedom of speech has become illusory and enforcement becomes arbitrary.' Lee added that free speech would be deterred as the offence under Section 233 carried a fine of up to RM50,000, a maximum one-year jail term, or both, upon conviction. He said that would be disproportionate to the legislative aim of the CMA. 'To silence speech that is true just because some may find it offensive and annoying would be akin to using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.' Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA had made it an offence for a person to make, create, solicit or initiate the transmission of any online comment which was 'obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive' with the 'intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person'. The civil action by Quah, the founder of Refuge for Refugees, challenged the validity of the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in the provision. In July 2021, Quah was charged in the Kuala Lumpur sessions court with posting offensive online comments on Facebook highlighting the alleged mistreatment of refugees at immigration detention centres. In April 2022, the sessions court granted her a discharge not amounting to an acquittal from a charge of improper use of network facilities. This was after the trial judge accepted a preliminary objection that the charge was defective as it did not comply with the requirements of Section 233 of the CMA. She then filed a civil action for a declaration that the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in the provision were invalid and contravened two fundamental human rights safeguarded by the constitution. Her suit was, however, dismissed by the High Court.
Sinar Daily
an hour ago
- Sinar Daily
Political leaders among the biggest threats to Constitution
'There were indications of attempts at interference towards the final period of my service.' Tengku Maimun KUALA LUMPUR – Former Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat admitted that political leaders are among the biggest threats to the Federal Constitution. She said this matter must be taken more seriously in order to safeguard the country's supreme law. "The biggest threat (to the Federal Constitution) is politicians. I don't think further elaboration is necessary,' she said during the Allianz Centre for Governance's lecture programme titled 'The Sanctity of Malaysia's Federal Constitution: Threats, Solutions and Impact on National Governance' at a hotel here on Tuesday. She said this in response to a question posed by one of the participants during the programme. Meanwhile, when asked whether she had ever faced interference from any party during her tenure, Tengku Maimun admitted that it had not happened. However, she said, signs of such attempts surfaced towards the end of her service. 'There were indications of attempts at interference towards the final period of my service,' she said. Commenting further on her responsibilities as Chief Justice, Tengku Maimun said that judgments were always based on facts and fair consideration, without being influenced by any external factors. She stressed that this principle was not only her own practice but also one she believed was upheld by other judges. 'When we are in court, we are blind (impartial). Not based on religion, race or any such considerations,' she said.
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Ignoring political 'interference' won't harm judiciary, says Tengku Maimun
KUALA LUMPUR: Attempts by politicians to interfere with the judiciary can be ignored with no impact on judicial independence, says former chief justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat. "But then again, it all depends on the judges," she said at a dialogue session titled "The Sanctity of Malaysia's Federal Constitution: Threats, Solutions and Impact on National Governance" here on Tuesday (Aug 19). 'There may be interference left, right, centre, but if you ignore (it), nothing will happen and the judiciary will remain intact and judicial independence will be upheld,' she added. Asked about threats to the judiciary during the question-and-answer session later, she replied, to applause and laughter: 'I'm sorry… but I would think that the biggest threat... would be the politicians. 'Perhaps I shouldn't elaborate." Tengku Maimun said that during her tenure as a judge in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court, she had never encountered any political interference. However, she acknowledged that 'there was a... semblance and attempted interference' towards the end of her tenure as the country's top judge. During her speech earlier, Tengku Maimun highlighted the crucial balance between judicial independence and collegiality within Malaysia's legal framework. She said these principles were important to maintain a fair and effective judiciary. Tengku Maimun explained that internal judicial independence is essential for judges to make decisions independently, free from undue influence by other judges, regardless of their rank. "Internal judicial independence refers to a judge's freedom to decide cases independently by applying one's... mind free from undue influence or control of other judges, particularly higher ranking or senior judges," she said. Tengku Maimun noted that collegiality plays a central role in appellate courts, where panels of judges deliberate on cases. This process ensures that diverse perspectives are considered, particularly when reviewing lower court judgments. "Collegiality and conferral among judicial panel members is a central (part) of the law and accountability as it ensures that every possible aspect of the case is considered," she said. Tengku Maimun clarified that judicial deliberations, which may involve disagreements and persuasive discussions, should not be confused with internal judicial interference. "What then happens is the judge who cannot agree is encouraged to write a fiscal judgment... if a judge disagrees with the outcome of (an) appeal, then he or she delivers a dissenting judgment or a separate judgment if he or she agrees with the outcome," she said. Also on the panel were Allianz Malaysia Bhd director Tan Sri Zainun Ali, Allianz Centre for Governance (ACG) director Zaharom Nain, ACG deputy director and principal research fellow Dr Syarifah Munirah Alatas, and National Human Rights Society (Hakam) past president Abdul Rashid Ismail. Tengku Maimun retired as chief justice on July 2 after being appointed to the position on May 2, 2019.
