The Federal Court will have to consider the application of a non-Muslim lawyer who wants to be admitted as a Syariah attorney, but is blocked by a Federal Territories rule that prohibits non-Muslims from practicing in Islamic courts.
Non-Muslim lawyer Victoria Jayaseele Martin is seeking to be admitted as a Syariah lawyer able to practice in Islamic courts in the Federal Territories. But the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Council (MAIWP) has imposed a ruling which doesn’t allow non-Muslims to practice Syariah law in courts under its jurisdiction.
She had already won a bid on the case at the Court of Appeal in 2013, but MAIWP and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had filed an appeal on the ruling, leading to the current legal quagmire.
MAIWP’s lawyer in the dispute, Mohd Haniff Khatri Abdulla, claims that the liberty clause, contained in Articles 5 to 13 of the Federal Constitution – which guarantees the right to non-discrimination and equality before the law – should not apply to matters pertaining to Syariah law.
In response, Martin’s attorney, Ranjit Singh, contends that MAIWP’s argument holds drastic implications for the Malaysian legal system, as it tacitly claims the Federal Constitution – the supreme law of the country – does not always apply to Muslims.
“To me, it’s the biggest, most profound constitutional question, which means the Constitution applies to non-Muslims, but when it comes to Muslims and Muslim laws by the states, the Constitution doesn’t apply,” Ranjit said, as quoted by The Malay Mail Online‘s Ida Lim.
The case has become mired in constitutional minutiae, with the Federal Court in February asking both sides to debate whether Rule 10 of the Shariah Lawyers Rules 1993 “mandating that only Muslims can be admitted as” Shariah lawyers is in violation of the Federal Constitution’s Article 8 (1), Article 8 (2), Article 5 and Article 10(1)(c) and is thus “void”.
Articles 8 (1) and 8 (2) is on equality before the law and the right to non-discrimination, while Article 5 and Article 10(1)(c) guarantees the liberty of a person and the freedom to form associations respectively.
Now that MAIWP has introduced its new argument, today’s Federal Court hearing has been postponed.
