[ad_1]
PUTRAJAYA: An appeal hearing of a woman for a statement that she is not Muslim was vacated today after a lawyer appearing for a party came into close contact with a minister who tested positive for Covid-19.
Lead attorney Sulaiman Abdullah, representing the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais), submitted the request as the deputy attorney, whose identity was kept confidential, was quarantined.
Federal Court Clerk Jumirah Marjuki said that Chief Justice Tengku Maimum Tuan Mat, who was scheduled to head a nine-member court to hear the appeal, allowed the case to be postponed.
“The rest of the parties did not oppose the request,” Jumirah told reporters, adding that the handling of the case would take place on October 27 to set a new hearing date.
Rosliza Ibrahim, who was born to a Muslim father but raised as a Buddhist by her Buddhist mother, is seeking a statement that she is not Muslim.
The government presents itself as an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, to assist the judges in the process.
Rosliza has taken the position that the Islamic laws of Selangor do not apply to her and that the sharia court has no jurisdiction over her.
He said that she was presumed to have been born Muslim, based on the assumption of a valid marriage between her parents and the assumption that her late mother had converted to Islam.
The Shah Alam High Court had dismissed her claim in April 2017 on the grounds that the evidence she presented had not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that she was not Muslim at birth.
The court also ruled that his appeal was in sharia court.
Rosliza said that she had gone to religious authorities in 10 other states and had obtained confirmation that her parents had no record of her mother converting to Islam or that a Muslim marriage had taken place.
However, in 2018, the Court of Appeal confirmed the High Court’s findings.
Earlier this year, a three-member bank allowed Rosliza’s request for permission to appeal based on two legal issues.
It was about whether the civil court had the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether or not a person is Muslim under the law and whether any information on the identity card was conclusive proof that one is Muslim.
Lawyer Gopal Sri Ram, who appeared for Rosliza, said that this appeal would also touch upon the 1988 amendment to article 121 of the Federal Constitution which was deemed unconstitutional as the basic structure of the letter was violated.
“The amendment has subordinated the court to Parliament. As a result, the doctrine of the separation of powers was also violated, ”she told reporters.
He said the Rozliza case was an opportunity to review a 2007 case involving Lina Joy, a Muslim woman who sought, but failed, to be allowed to change her religion from Islam to Christianity.
The Federal Court had ruled that he must first obtain a certificate to leave the religion before submitting it to the National Registration Department so that the word “Islam” would be removed from his identity document.
