 2019){kind=link}
On February 12, Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat declared 18 provisions under Kelantan’s Syariah Criminal Code Enactment (1) 2019 unconstitutional. Lawyers Nik Elin Zurina Nik Abdul Rashid and Yasmin challenged these since 2022, citing constitutional and public interest concerns.
The ruling prompts a nationwide reassessment of similar enactments, with Deputy Menteri Besar Mohamed Fadzil Hassan expressing dissatisfaction. Former law minister Takiyuddin bin Haji Hassan anticipates a ripple effect, urging states like Penang and Terengganu to review and align their Syariah enactments with existing civil legislation.
Read This News In Detail
In a landmark ruling on February 12, Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat delivered a decisive judgement at the Palace of Justice, declaring 18 provisions under Kelantan’s Syariah Criminal Code Enactment (1) 2019 unconstitutional. The petitioners, lawyers Nik Elin Zurina Nik Abdul Rashid and Yasmin, challenged these provisions since 2022, emphasizing not just constitutional concerns but a broader public interest.
The verdict raises questions about similar enactments nationwide. Deputy Menteri Besar of Kelantan, Mohamed Fadzil Hassan, expressed dissatisfaction, highlighting the wider dilemma faced by various states with comparable laws.
Background:
The Federal Court’s recent decision holds significant implications for the constitutionality of Syariah enactments, specifically focusing on Kelantan’s Syariah Criminal Code Enactment (1) 2019.
The petitioners, Nik Elin Zurina Nik Abdul Rashid and her daughter Yasmin, embarked on this legal journey in 2022, citing concerns not only for constitutional integrity but also as a matter of public interest. The Kelantan case sheds light on a broader issue of similar provisions existing in various state legislative assemblies across Malaysia.
Key Verdict:
Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat delivered a concise and comprehensive majority judgement, declaring 18 provisions in Kelantan’s Syariah Criminal Code Enactment (1) 2019 as unconstitutional. This ruling is anticipated to have a ripple effect on similar Syariah enactments across the country, prompting a reassessment of existing laws in different states.
Petitioners’ Motivation:
Nik Elin Zurina Nik Abdul Rashid and Yasmin, both lawyers, faced significant disruptions in their lives due to this legal challenge. Despite being labeled as “busybodies” by some, they pursued the petition driven by concerns for constitutional integrity and the potential impact on the lives of many in Malaysia. The press conference held later in the Palace of Justice’s lobby highlighted the public interest nature of their endeavor.
State Reactions:
Deputy Menteri Besar of Kelantan, Mohamed Fadzil Hassan, expressed disappointment at the necessity of challenging long-standing provisions, emphasizing that they had been on the books for several years. This reaction underscores the broader challenge faced by states with existing Syariah enactments, raising questions about the compatibility of these laws with civil legislation.
Ripple Effect:
Former law minister Takiyuddin bin Haji Hassan correctly pointed out that the Federal Court’s judgement is likely to have a ripple effect on similar Syariah enactments nationwide. Kelantan is now compelled to remove overlapping provisions, aligning them with existing civil legislation. This precedent calls for other states, such as Penang, Terengganu, Perak, and Federal Territories, to review and potentially amend their Syariah enactments to avoid constitutional conflicts.
In summary, the Federal Court’s decision sets a precedent with far-reaching implications, challenging the constitutional validity of Syariah enactments across Malaysia and urging a reconsideration of existing laws in the interest of constitutional harmony.