COA judge: I was reprimanded for dissenting in Indra Gandhi's case

A Court of Appeal judge told an international law conference that he was reprimanded by a top judge for writing a dissenting judgment two years ago in the case of the unilateral conversion of M Indira Gandhi's children.

Justice Hamid Sultan Abu Backer (extreme right) said he stood firm in defending his decision to dissent.

"As soon as the judgment was released, a top judge called up the entire coram and severely reprimanded me, accusing me of judicial activism. Not only that but he started throwing tantrums (directed) at me in an uncivilised manner.

"I stood my ground. My response to that top judge was that I do not have to defend my judgment and I will not be cowed to act against my oath of office.

"This incident created a long-term, strained relationship with that judge," he said, without revealing who the top judge was.

As a result of the judgment, Justice Hamid said he was not assigned to hear cases involving public interests and related to the constitution.

"However, I hold to my oath of office as a judge and try to relate constitutional issues in civil and commercial cases," he said at the International Malaysia Law Conference in Kuala Lumpur today.

He was among the four panel members who were speaking at the law conference titled "Judiciary as the principle guardians of the rule of law".

The Court of Appeal made the judgement on Dec 30, 2015, but the written judgment was only made public on Jan 5, 2016.

Justice Hamid, in the dissenting judgment, wrote that the conversion of the children was illegal as the permission of the mother had not been obtained and the children themselves did not affirm or recite the Kalimah Shahadah (affirmation of faith) as required.

He said in his 74-page judgment, that for a valid administrative conversion to take place, the application must be made by the three children with the consent of both parents.

“There is no provision for a parent to make the application. In addition, the children must, and I repeat, must affirm what is often called in Arabic as Kalimah Shahadah, as set out in Section 96 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004.

“If a person or child has not affirmed the Kalimah Shahadah, there is no provision in written law for a valid conversion to take place and it is as simple as that.

"In this instance, it is not in dispute that the children have not made the application, have not recited the Kalimah Shahadah nor have they requested the appellant (their father, Mohd Ridhwan Abdullah, formerly known as K Pathmanathan) to give consent to their conversion."

When the case was brought to the Federal Court, Justice Zainun Ali, who wrote the unanimous decision, overturned the Court of Appeal decision. In other words, he, too, shared Justice Hamid's views.

Hamid went on to laud former Court of Appeal judges Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof (now Dewan Rakyat Speaker), Mah Weng Kwai and Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus, with whom he had shared the bench in several cases.

All these individuals, he said, were highly respected and judicially dynamic judges but they were never promoted.

Meanwhile, former Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram, who was also a panelist, said when we have a rule of law embedded, judges need to interpret the case when it comes to court.

He said that members of the judiciary are the guardians of the law and that they are not lawmakers, but the judiciary is tasked to interpret the law.

The former apex court judge also criticised the Court of Appeal decision in the Damansara MP Tony Pua's case in relation to 1MDB and hoped that the matter would be overturned by the Federal Court. -Mkini