A general view of the Federal Court in Putrajaya February 15, 2022. — Bernama pic
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 21 — The Shariah Lawyers Association of Malaysia (PGSM) today called for the Federal Constitution to be amended in order to empower state governments to make laws to give Shariah courts the power to exercise judicial review.
Earlier today, a nine-judge panel at the Federal Court — including the chief justice and also the top three judges in Malaysia — had unanimously declared that Section 66A in a Selangor state law was unconstitutional as the Selangor state legislative assembly did not have the power to make that law to give judicial review powers to Shariah courts.
Section 66A of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 is the Selangor state law that attempted to give Shariah courts in Selangor the power to hear and decide judicial reviews on decisions made by those such as the Selangor Islamic religious council (Mais) and Selangor’s fatwa committee.
This is what Section 66A — which was struck down as invalid today by the Federal Court — states: “The Syariah High Court, may, in the interest of justice, on the application of any person, have the jurisdiction to grant permission and hear the application for judicial review on the decision made by the Majlis or committees carrying out the functions under this Enactment.”
Section 66A, however, does not make specific references to what these decisions would cover, such as whether it would involve fatwas issued by Selangor’s fatwa committee or Mais.
The Federal Court pointed out that it had in several other court cases already made clear that it is solely the civil courts that have the power to exercise judicial review, while pointing out that the Federal Constitution itself does not enable state legislative assemblies to make laws to give judicial review powers to the Shariah courts.
In a statement, PGSM president Musa Awang today described the Federal Court’s decision as a decision that Shariah courts do not have the power to make judicial reviews on fatwa (otherwise known as religious opinions) issued by state Islamic authorities.
Musa then went on to urge for the Federal Constitution to be changed in order to ultimately enable the Shariah courts to be able to carry out judicial review on decisions made by state Islamic bodies.
“PGSM urges the Federal Government to take a long-term approach to amend Item 1, List II (State List) of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution to give powers to the State Government to have laws to give power to the State Shariah Court to carry out judicial review powers on any decisions made by the State Islamic Religious Council or committees that carry out functions under state Shariah laws, including by state fatwa committees,” he said.
Musa insisted that the Shariah courts should have judicial review powers when it comes to decisions made by state Islamic religious councils or by state fatwa committees, arguing that Shariah courts are the “appropriate and competent forum as it involves parties among those who are of the religion Islam and revolves around hukum syarak“. The term “hukum syarak” refers to Islamic laws.
“In order to implement that amendment, PGSM urges the Federal Government to form a Special Committee to study and propose that Federal Constitution amendment,” he said.
Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat delivered the nine-judge panel’s decision which recognised that judicial review powers belong solely to the civil courts. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa
Earlier today, the Federal Court had already explained however that only the civil courts have the power to carry out judicial review, to determine whether laws are valid by being consistent with the Federal Constitution and to determine for example whether decisions or exercise of public law powers (or exercise of powers by public authorities or public bodies) for being illegal or failing to follow procedures.
The Federal Court had also highlighted the difference between the making of a fatwa — or the procedures and laws to be complied with in the process of making a fatwa — and the fatwa’s substantive contents or what the fatwa actually says.
The Federal Court made it clear that it is still purely for the Shariah courts to decide on a fatwa’s contents and its interpretation to the extent that such matters involve “hukum syarak” (Islamic law) or personal law and not about matters involving contradictions with any written law — federal law, state law or the Federal Constitution.
But when it comes to situations such as whether a fatwa committee’s conduct or fatwa complied with procedures, the Federal Court said this would be for the civil courts to decide.
In examining the powers given under Section 7 of the 2003 Selangor enactment to Mais, the Federal Court noted that Mais’ powers clearly go beyond what could be considered as involving Islamic doctrines or being part of substantive Islamic law, but had instead crossed quite clearly into public law and involving public law powers.
Section 7 lists Mais’ duty of promoting economic and social development of Muslims in Selangor, as well as its powers to carry out activities involving the development of commercial and industrial enterprises and to give out loans or work together with others for such purposes, to make investments, to establish higher education loan schemes for Muslims, to establish and maintain Islamic schools and Islamic training and research institutions, and to establish and manage welfare home for orphans.
In other words, Shariah courts would still be the appropriate courts to decide on matters directly involving Islamic law, but civil courts would still be the only courts that have judicial review powers or the power to review whether decisions and actions and powers exercised by a public body are lawful and valid.