Religious court on collision course with civil court over Kassim Ahmad’s case
V. Anbalagan, The Malaysian Insider
A shariah court is insisting on proceeding with activist Dr Kassim Ahmad’s case despite an ongoing judicial review, his lawyer said today.
Counsel Rosli Dahlan said the court wanted the trial to begin on October 20, where Kassim had been alleged to have insulted Islam and defied the religious authorities.
Rosli said he was informed by a religious court official in Putrajaya yesterday and that the case would go on as fixed because the Federal Territories shariah chief prosecutor Ibrahim Deris and the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department (Jawi) were not agreeable to an adjournment.
“The irony is that Ibrahim and Jawi are parties to the judicial review filed by my client. I am dumbfounded why the religious court wants the matter to go on, based on the insistence of interested parties,” he told The Malaysian Insider.
On July 24, the Court of Appeal ruled that the High Court has the jurisdiction to hear Kassim’s judicial review application to challenge the shariah prosecutor’s decision to charge him with insulting Islam.
The High Court has fixed November 17 to hear the judicial review application.
Rosli said following the Court of Appeal’s ruling, religious authorities and the government had asked for some time to file their court papers before the High Court could hear the merit of the case.
“We have no problem with that but we are not deliberately delaying the proceedings because we need to obtain the decision of the civil court first.”
Rosli said he may file an application to stop the Monday’s proceedings in the religious court.
A three-man Court of Appeal bench, chaired by Datuk Balia Yusof Wahi, in allowing Kassim’s appeal, had said the conduct of (the Federal Territories shariah chief prosecutor) Ibrahim and Jawi could be scrutinised.
On July 14, judge Datuk Zaleha Yusof allowed the Attorney-General’s preliminary objection against the judicial review, citing that the subject matter was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the religious court.
However, Balia said a shariah criminal matter did not come within the meaning under the Federal Constitution.
“Shariah offence is only an offence against the precept of Islam,” he had said, adding that the bench was bound by a 1988 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Mamat Daud vs public prosecutor.
