Nizam Bashir | نظام بسهير · @nizambashir
28th Aug 2019 from TwitLonger
Long version. Here is why I think High Court judge in #SIS Case is not correct
High Court says can’t hear SIS challenge against ‘deviant’ fatwa, directs group to Shariah courts | Malay Mail https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/08/27/high-court-says-cant-hear-sis-challenge-against-deviant-fatwa-directs-group/1784692#.XWVwJwXXQ1E.twitter
Here is why I think the High Court judge in the #SIS Case is not correct.
1. Irrespective of whatever Article 121(1A) FC may state, civil courts have the exclusive jurisdiction to interprete the Federal Constitution and determine the scope of the Syariah authorities' powers to issue a fatwa over non-natural persons.
2. Once the civil courts performs its constitutional role the appropriate ruling, subject to (4) below, is that Syariah authorities do NOT have the constitutional competence to issue a fatwa over non-natural persons (e.g. companies, societies and institutions).
3. s. 66A of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 cannot apply to permit SIS to judicially review the fatwa as that section only came about AFTER the #SISFatwaChallenge was filed. As a matter of law, laws which come LATER cannot take away the pre-existing rights of a party. The pre-existing rights here is the right to judicially review the decision in the civil courts.
Alternatively, SIS - as a company - CANNOT appear before the Syariah Courts. Consequently, the issue of there being no time frame to file a review in the Syariah Courts is, with respect, irrelevant.
4. The fact that a company, its directors and its shareholders are Muslim have NO bearing on the question of whether Syariah authorities have any jurisdiction over a non-natural person (i.e. company etc). See (2) above. More so, where those entities:
a. are facing/faced with any criminal charges; and
b. are merely seeking to evade liability by way of that corporate personality.
One can lift the veil of incorporation in limited circumstances i.e. where impropriety and dishonesty exists. See R v. Seager [2009] EWCA Crim 1303 at [76].
No third party or Court is being deceived in the present instance. So where is the basis to lift the veil?