The spotlight would be on a seven-member Federal Court bench on Monday, when it would deliver a decision on whether or not to hear the Archbishop Roman Catholic Church’s appeal, on the use of the word 'Allah' to denote God in its The Herald publication.
This is if the apex court panel headed by Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria, allows leave (permission) to hear the Archbishop's appeal over the Court of Appeal's decision thatthe term is exclusive to Muslims.
It is not automatic for civil appeals to be heard at the highest court in the country as leave had to be gained first.
If permission is granted, the hearing will be fixed on another date, as the Archbishop's lawyers had already posed 28 questions of law to be decided by the highest court in the country.
If the bench comprising five Muslim and two non-Muslim judges decides otherwise, the Archbishop's appeal would end there.
This is if the apex court allowed the preliminary objectionbrought by the six state Islamic councils, and one-Muslim organisation that say the Court of Appeal had made a finding of fact, and hence permission to appeal should not be allowed.
The six state Islamic councils are Terengganu, Kedah, Malacca, the Federal Territory, Selangor and Johor.
Counsel representing the council have argued that some states have issued state fatwas (edict) prohibiting the word for use by non-Muslims and that by allowing the appeal, the Home Minister who enforces the ban on The Heraldwould be seen as going against the rulers.
The church's weekly has been using the term problem-free in its Bahasa Malaysia publi cation since the 1990's to cater the interests of the Christian communities in Sabah and Sarawak. .
During submissions for leave, counsel for the archbishop, Benjamin Dawson had argued that Sabah and Sarawak’s Christian communities which form the majority population there, and also in peninsular Malaya have been using the Allah term since the 18th century.
The cabinet had issued a ban on the word for non-Muslim use in 1986, after the issuance of a national fatwa.
High Court ruled ban unlawful
Upon the Home Ministry's discovery in 2007, the minister decided not to allow The Herald to use the term in its Bahasa Malaysia publication resulting in this case landing in court.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court had on Dec 31, 2009, declared the minister’s ban as unconstitutional and unlawful, and ruled in favour of the archbishop for the ban to be lifted.
Hence, the focus would be on the top judiciary in the country where besides Arifin, the members in the panel comprise President of Court of Appeal Justice Md Raus Sharif, Chief Judge of Malaya Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, Justice Richard Malanjum.
Others are Federal Court judges Justices Suriyadi Halim Omar, Jeffrey Tan Kok Wha and Zainun Ali.
As submitted by the archbishop's lead counsel Cyrus Das, there will also be aglobal attention over the outcome, as the decision by the appellate court had seen an uproar not only in Malaysia but across the world and not limited to the Christians but also the Muslim community.
Cyrus had said high officials comprising United Nations special rapporteur on religious freedom, Heiner Bielfeldt, UN expert on minority issues Rita Izsak and UN special rapporteur promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue have expressed disquiet on the status of religious minority rights in Malaysia.
“This is as a result of the Court of Appeal judgments. Their comments have been officially published on the UN website.
“We submit that the spotlight on the court judgment by the relevant bodies of the UN and by international commentators demonstrates the public importance of this case domestically and internationally,” the senior lawyer had said.
Can church review decision?
Should the archbishop fail in his application, the lawyers can certainly file a review of Monday's decision.
However, the archbishop may face an uphill task as Monday decision is in the hands of a seven-member panel, and hence, the review would have to be heard before other judges and a bigger panel to overturn it.
Hence, a panel of seven or more judges must be constituted for the review. There are only three other Federal court judges left however, Justice Md Apandi Ali, cannot hear it as he had led the three-member panel at the Court of Appeal that overturned the High Court decision.
Therefore, to have a review, other judges from the Court of Appeal may have to be called up to hear the review should the archbishop failed in his attempt.
What the public is likely to see on Monday, is all seven reading or delivering their judgments on whether or not to favour the leave for the appeal. There is a likelihood that Monday's decision would be a majority decision.
The country had already seen unhappiness since the Court of Appeal judgment and this is escalated further sparked by the seizure of 321 Malay and Iban bibles owned by the Bible Society Malaysia, by the Selangor Islamic Department last January. An issue still to see a resolution.
It remains to be seen whether Monday's decision, will bring down the curtain on the issue.
Constitutional challenges can be brought again based on other cases which are still pending namely the Jill Ireland matter which saw the seizure of religious VCD's brought in from Indonesia with the banned words used and the Sidang Injil Borneo judicial review following a seizure of religious books with the word 'Allah' in 2007.
It was reported last month, the KL High Court did not grant permission for Sidang Injil Borneo to initiate a judicial review application as the court was bound by the Court of Appeal decision while the Jill Ireland matter has yet to be decided on whether leave should be granted.
Against this backdrop, the highly charged decision on Monday would have a huge impact on what would happen to the rights of religious minorities in the country.
It would also be interesting to see if Monday's judgment would also draw comments on the seizure of the Bibles.
This is if the apex court panel headed by Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria, allows leave (permission) to hear the Archbishop's appeal over the Court of Appeal's decision thatthe term is exclusive to Muslims.
It is not automatic for civil appeals to be heard at the highest court in the country as leave had to be gained first.
If permission is granted, the hearing will be fixed on another date, as the Archbishop's lawyers had already posed 28 questions of law to be decided by the highest court in the country.
If the bench comprising five Muslim and two non-Muslim judges decides otherwise, the Archbishop's appeal would end there.
This is if the apex court allowed the preliminary objectionbrought by the six state Islamic councils, and one-Muslim organisation that say the Court of Appeal had made a finding of fact, and hence permission to appeal should not be allowed.
The six state Islamic councils are Terengganu, Kedah, Malacca, the Federal Territory, Selangor and Johor.
Counsel representing the council have argued that some states have issued state fatwas (edict) prohibiting the word for use by non-Muslims and that by allowing the appeal, the Home Minister who enforces the ban on The Heraldwould be seen as going against the rulers.The church's weekly has been using the term problem-free in its Bahasa Malaysia publi cation since the 1990's to cater the interests of the Christian communities in Sabah and Sarawak. .
During submissions for leave, counsel for the archbishop, Benjamin Dawson had argued that Sabah and Sarawak’s Christian communities which form the majority population there, and also in peninsular Malaya have been using the Allah term since the 18th century.
The cabinet had issued a ban on the word for non-Muslim use in 1986, after the issuance of a national fatwa.
High Court ruled ban unlawful
Upon the Home Ministry's discovery in 2007, the minister decided not to allow The Herald to use the term in its Bahasa Malaysia publication resulting in this case landing in court.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court had on Dec 31, 2009, declared the minister’s ban as unconstitutional and unlawful, and ruled in favour of the archbishop for the ban to be lifted.
Hence, the focus would be on the top judiciary in the country where besides Arifin, the members in the panel comprise President of Court of Appeal Justice Md Raus Sharif, Chief Judge of Malaya Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, Justice Richard Malanjum.
Others are Federal Court judges Justices Suriyadi Halim Omar, Jeffrey Tan Kok Wha and Zainun Ali.
As submitted by the archbishop's lead counsel Cyrus Das, there will also be aglobal attention over the outcome, as the decision by the appellate court had seen an uproar not only in Malaysia but across the world and not limited to the Christians but also the Muslim community.Cyrus had said high officials comprising United Nations special rapporteur on religious freedom, Heiner Bielfeldt, UN expert on minority issues Rita Izsak and UN special rapporteur promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue have expressed disquiet on the status of religious minority rights in Malaysia.
“This is as a result of the Court of Appeal judgments. Their comments have been officially published on the UN website.
“We submit that the spotlight on the court judgment by the relevant bodies of the UN and by international commentators demonstrates the public importance of this case domestically and internationally,” the senior lawyer had said.
Can church review decision?
Should the archbishop fail in his application, the lawyers can certainly file a review of Monday's decision.
However, the archbishop may face an uphill task as Monday decision is in the hands of a seven-member panel, and hence, the review would have to be heard before other judges and a bigger panel to overturn it.
Hence, a panel of seven or more judges must be constituted for the review. There are only three other Federal court judges left however, Justice Md Apandi Ali, cannot hear it as he had led the three-member panel at the Court of Appeal that overturned the High Court decision.
Therefore, to have a review, other judges from the Court of Appeal may have to be called up to hear the review should the archbishop failed in his attempt.
What the public is likely to see on Monday, is all seven reading or delivering their judgments on whether or not to favour the leave for the appeal. There is a likelihood that Monday's decision would be a majority decision.
The country had already seen unhappiness since the Court of Appeal judgment and this is escalated further sparked by the seizure of 321 Malay and Iban bibles owned by the Bible Society Malaysia, by the Selangor Islamic Department last January. An issue still to see a resolution.It remains to be seen whether Monday's decision, will bring down the curtain on the issue.
Constitutional challenges can be brought again based on other cases which are still pending namely the Jill Ireland matter which saw the seizure of religious VCD's brought in from Indonesia with the banned words used and the Sidang Injil Borneo judicial review following a seizure of religious books with the word 'Allah' in 2007.
It was reported last month, the KL High Court did not grant permission for Sidang Injil Borneo to initiate a judicial review application as the court was bound by the Court of Appeal decision while the Jill Ireland matter has yet to be decided on whether leave should be granted.
Against this backdrop, the highly charged decision on Monday would have a huge impact on what would happen to the rights of religious minorities in the country.
It would also be interesting to see if Monday's judgment would also draw comments on the seizure of the Bibles.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.