The High Court has erred in interpreting the then Dr Mahathir Mohamad-led 1986 cabinet policy on the conditional use of the word “Allah” by Christians, claimed a lawyer.
Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla (above), who represented two religious bodies in the related judicial review, contended that this issue would be raised in the appeal at the Court of Appeal.
The lawyer acted for the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Council (Maiwp) and Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) in the legal action involving Melanau Christian Jill Ireland.
On March 10, Court of Appeal judge Nor Bee Ariffin, sitting in the capacity of a High Court judge in Kuala Lumpur, allowed the application by Ireland.
The judge ruled that the government erred in issuing the 1986 directive banning the use of the word "Allah" by Christians and that Ireland, a Sarawakian, had the right to use the word for religious and educational purposes.
Ireland had initially instituted the action for the return of Malay-language Christian CDs and religious books seized by customs officers at the Kuala Lumpur Low-Cost Terminal (LCCT), Sepang, in 2008.
She had then just touched down in Malaysia via a flight from Indonesia.
However, following a court order to have the items returned to the clerk in 2015, her legal battle became one seeking a court declaration for the right to use the word “Allah”.
The home minister and the government, the two respondents in the matter, had since filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
In the course of the judicial review at the High Court, Maiwp and Mais acted as amicus curiae (a person not a party in the legal matter, who still assist the court by offering expertise and insight into the issues involved).
In the full written grounds of judgment, Nor Bee ruled that Home Ministry officials had issued the directive banning Christians from using the word “Allah” in contravention of the then 1986 policy stance of the cabinet under Mahathir, who was then premier and home minister.
The judge had relied on a 1986 memo by then deputy prime minister Abdul Ghafar Baba, upon which she ruled had shown the then cabinet policy was to allow Christians in Malaysia conditional use of the word “Allah” in religious publications.
Speaking to Malaysiakini today, Haniff said that the High Court judge’s ruling on the 1986 cabinet stance will be among key areas to be raised in the appeal at the Court of Appeal.
The lawyer contended that with all due respect, the judge has erred in her interpretation of Ghafar’s memo.
“We contend that the 1986 cabinet’s policy stance was a full ban rather than allowing conditional use of the word 'Allah' by Christians in Malaysia.
“As far as Maiwp and Mais as well as the government are concerned, that part of Nor Bee’s judgment is a key area we will submit is wrong during the appeal at the Court of Appeal,” Haniff said.
The lawyer contended the way Ghafar’s memo was worded was such that the phrase stating the conditional use of putting “Untuk Agama Kristian” (For Christian Religion) on front cover of religious books is actually not for the use of the word “Allah” and three others.
The three other words are “Baitullah”, "Kaabah” and "Solat”.
Haniff contended that instead the "conditional use" phrase was intended for the earlier portion of Ghafar’s memo in regard to 12 other words that may be used by Christians in Bahasa Malaysia religious text.
These 12 words, which were not the focus of Ireland’s judicial review, were “Al-Kitab”, “Firman”, “Rasul”, “Syariat”, “Iman”, “Ibadah”, “Injil”, “Wahyu”, “Nabi”, “Syukur”, “Zikir”, and “Doa”.
“We will submit before the Court of Appeal that the 1986 directive was in order and in compliance with the policy of the then cabinet endorsed by both Ghafar and Mahathir,” the lawyer said. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.