Latest news with #TunTengkuMaimun
Malay Mail
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Federal Court declares Selangor fatwa partially invalid, no more ‘sesat' or deviant label for SIS
PUTRAJAYA, June 19 — Muslim women's rights group Sisters in Islam (SIS) today won its nearly 11-year-long court challenge against a Selangor fatwa, which means that its company — SIS Forum (Malaysia) — is no longer labelled 'sesat' or deviant from Islamic teachings. Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, who chaired the Federal Court's five-judge panel, read out the majority judgment which quashed parts of the Selangor fatwa. The Selangor fatwa, issued in 2014, had four paragraphs: 1. SIS Forum (Malaysia) and any individual, organisation or institution who hold on to 'liberalism and religious pluralism' as 'deviants' from Islamic teachings. 2. Any publications with elements of liberalism and religious pluralism should be banned and can be seized. 3. The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) is to block social websites that go against Islamic teachings and hukum syarak (Islamic law). 4. Any individuals holding on to liberalism and religious pluralism should repent and return to Islam. Now, the Federal Court said the first paragraph was only valid for the part where it referred to individuals (and which means that the parts referring to SIS Forum, organisation and institution are no longer valid), and the second and third paragraphs are also invalid, while the fourth paragraph remains valid. The two other judges on the panel who supported the majority judgment are President of the Court of Appeal Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim and Federal Court judge Tan Sri Nallini Pathmanathan. Federal Court judge Datuk Abu Bakar Jais was the only judge who dissented, and read out his minority judgement where he gave his opinion that the Shariah courts should be the one to decide on the legality of the fatwa. Federal Court judge Datuk Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil had also sat on the panel but is now retired. Recommended reading: 'Deviant' or not? Sisters in Islam awaits Federal Court verdict today on Selangor fatwa MORE TO COME
Malay Mail
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
‘Deviant' or not? Sisters in Islam awaits Federal Court verdict today on Selangor fatwa
Today, Federal Court to decide on Sisters in Islam's challenge against Selangor fatwa labelling it deviant KUALA LUMPUR, June 19 — Muslim women's rights group Sisters in Islam (SIS) will find out today whether it will remain labelled 'deviant' in Selangor, and whether its publications risk seizure or its website could be blocked. For more than 10 years, SIS has been challenging a Selangor fatwa which labels it as deviant, and this court battle will finally come to an end today at the Federal Court. The Federal Court's five-judge panel, chaired by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, is expected to deliver its decision this morning on whether the Selangor fatwa is valid and applies to SIS. Here's a quick guide to all you need to know ahead of today's upcoming decision: 1. What is SIS? SIS, founded in 1988 and which operates through the company SIS Forum (Malaysia), is known for pushing for law reforms and promoting women's rights. It has also been giving free legal advice to Muslims in Malaysia on their legal rights under Islamic family law and local laws on Shariah criminal offences. 2. What does the Selangor fatwa against SIS say? On July 31, 2014, the Selangor state government gazetted a fatwa which declared SIS Forum (Malaysia) and any individual, organisation or institution who hold on to 'liberalism and religious pluralism' as 'deviants' from Islamic teachings. The fatwa also says: Any publications with elements of liberalism and religious pluralism should be banned and can be seized. The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) is to block social websites that go against Islamic teachings and hukum syarak (Islamic law). Any individuals holding on to liberalism and religious pluralism should repent and return to Islam. Since the fatwa or religious edict was gazetted, it became legally-binding in Selangor. 3. What did SIS want in its constitutional challenge? On October 31, 2014, SIS Forum (Malaysia) filed for judicial review in the civil courts to challenge the constitutionality and legality of the Selangor fatwa. The court challenge named three respondents: the Selangor Fatwa Committee, the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) and the Selangor state government. In short, here are the court orders that SIS Forum (Malaysia) wanted the High Court to make: to declare the state's fatwa goes against federal laws (Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984's Section 7 and the Communications and Multimedia Act's Section 3) and the Federal Constitution (Article 5, 8, 10, 11) to declare that the fatwa cannot apply on SIS Forum as it is a company, and as the Selangor Islamic authorities only have jurisdiction over individuals professing the religion of Islam to quash or cancel the fatwa. 4. What did the High Court and Court of Appeal say? On August 27, 2019, the High Court dismissed SIS Forum's fatwa challenge as it ruled that the civil courts have no jurisdiction to hear the case, and that the Shariah courts should be the one to hear and decide it. The High Court also said the fatwa did not go against federal laws and the Federal Constitution, and that the fatwa applies to SIS Forum even though it is a company as its directors are Muslim. On March 14, 2023, the Court of Appeal in a 2-1 decision also dismissed SIS Forum's fatwa challenge, with the majority agreeing with the High Court. Following those court rulings, SIS Forum appealed to the Federal Court. 5. What the Federal Court was asked to decide today Over two days of hearings on December 2, 2024 and on March 12, 2025, the Federal Court was asked to consider 10 complex questions about the Federal Constitution and other laws. Some of the key issues covered by these questions are whether fatwas that are gazetted would become subsidiary laws, and whether the civil courts would then have the power to review the constitutionality and legality of gazetted fatwas. Other issues covered are the procedures that the Selangor fatwa committee should follow under a 2003 Selangor state law when making fatwas, such as whether it should have given SIS the opportunity to be heard first, and if the making of such fatwas cannot restrict or prohibit the constitutionally-guaranteed right of freedom of expression. Other key issues are on whether companies can be treated as persons professing the religion of Islam, and whether the Selangor Fatwa Committee has the power to include directives — such as to ban publications and to block websites — to the federal government or the state government when making fatwas. In short, the Federal Court was asked to consider if fatwas can apply to companies like SIS Forum, and if Selangor had followed procedures in making this fatwa and if the fatwa goes against constitutional rights such as equality, freedom of expression, freedom of religion. 6. What about that other Federal Court decision? And what is Section 66A about? Just months after SIS started its judicial review case in the civil courts to challenge the fatwa, Selangor amended a state law to introduce Section 66A to give Selangor's Shariah courts the power to carry out judicial reviews. The High Court in August 2019 had actually mentioned Section 66A as enabling SIS to apply for a judicial review of the fatwa in the Shariah courts, while also ruling that it is the Shariah courts that have the power to review the Selangor fatwa against SIS. SIS then filed a separate court case at the Federal Court to challenge Section 66A. On February 21, 2022, the Federal Court declared Section 66A as invalid and unconstitutional as it said Selangor does not have the powers to make the law to give judicial review powers to Shariah courts, and also made it clear that only civil courts have judicial review powers. SIS's fatwa challenge then continued on, and its lawyers have also relied on the Federal Court's 2022 decision to say that civil courts have the power to review fatwas based on constitutional matters and that companies cannot profess a religion. 7. Why is the SIS court challenge important? Today, the Federal Court will have a chance to make clear whether state religious authorities can apply fatwas on companies, and also the scope of powers and role played by state religious authorities as well as the procedures required, among other things. In a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) provided to the media earlier this week, SIS explained that it filed the judicial review 'not to challenge Islam', but to defend its constitutional rights as a civil organisation and to uphold justice in line with Islamic values. 'This case is not simply about a single fatwa or one organisation — it is a landmark test of constitutional boundaries affecting the rule of law in Malaysia,' SIS explained in its compilation of information about the case.
Malay Mail
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Hakam urges transparency, equal treatment in judicial tenure extensions
KUALA LUMPUR, May 22 — The National Human Rights Society of Malaysia (Hakam) has called for transparency and equal treatment in the extension of judicial tenures, expressing concern over reports of selective practices in granting extensions to senior Federal Court judges. In a statement, Hakam highlighted that Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, and Federal Court judge Tan Sri Nallini Pathmanathan have not received the customary six-month extensions under Article 125(1) of the Federal Constitution despite their upcoming retirements. 'This is in stark contrast to extensions granted to Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Sebli, Chief Judge of Malaya Datuk Seri Hasnah Mohammed Hashim, and Federal Court judges Tan Sri Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal, Datuk Zabariah Mohamad Yusof, and Datuk Hanipah Farikullah,' Hakam said. The group raised concerns about what it described as a selective and opaque approach to judicial extensions, which it said undermines public confidence in the judiciary and threatens its independence. 'Malaysia's judiciary is at a pivotal juncture with nine Federal Court judges set to retire this year. The leadership of Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun, who has been instrumental in restoring public confidence in the judiciary, is essential during this critical period,' Hakam said. Tun Tengku Maimun, Malaysia's first female Chief Justice, has been lauded for her commitment to judicial independence and for presiding over landmark cases with integrity during her tenure under four prime ministers. Hakam also praised her efforts in advocating for judicial reforms to reduce executive influence in judicial appointments. Similarly, Hakam commended Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Abang Iskandar and Justice Tan Sri Nallini Pathmanathan for their exceptional jurisprudence, independence, and adherence to constitutional principles. The group urged the government to ensure consistency and transparency in judicial extensions, calling for clear criteria based on merit and experience rather than political considerations. 'Hakam calls upon the government to extend the tenures of Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun, Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Abang Iskandar, and Justice Tan Sri Nallini Pathmanathan under Article 125(1) of the Federal Constitution,' the statement read. It also demanded transparency in the decision-making process for judicial appointments and extensions, emphasising that an independent judiciary is vital for democracy and human rights protection. 'The stability of our judiciary and public confidence in Malaysia's legal system depend on the fair and equal treatment of our most senior judges,' Hakam added. The society said it would continue monitoring the situation and advocating for judicial independence as a fundamental pillar of Malaysia's constitutional democracy.
