The Federal Court adjourned its decision on an appeal by the National Registration Department (NRD) to determine whether a Muslim child conceived out of wedlock can bear the father’s name instead of “bin Abdullah”.

Court of Appeal president Ahmad Maarop, who led a bench that included Federal Court judges Balia Yusof Wahi and Aziah Ali, agreed to do so following a request by lawyers representing the National Registration Department, its director-general and the government.

“This is our decision with respect of the application of adjournment.

“We are actually ready to deliver a decision. In fact, our written judgment is ready. However, in the circumstances… having considered the submission by the learned respondent who did not object and the intervenor who objected, we allow the application for the application for adjournment.

“We order for the decision to be adjourned to a date to be fixed.”

The request for adjournment was made by senior federal counsel Amarjeet Singh, who said the government intends to resolve the issue by legislative or executive means.

“The government is seeking adjournment due to delicate nature of the subject matter, which has far reaching implications and as such requires a solution by other means.

“I am advised by the Attorney-General (Tommy Thomas), that the executive says that it needs to address the matter very carefully and consult a wide range of stakeholders.

“In view of the seriousness of the matter, I am instructed to inform the court that the executive will commence efforts to achieve a solution by other means commencing today.”

The panel was to rule today whether the government can bar an illegitimate Muslim child from bearing the father’s name.

The case came to be after a couple in Johor filed for a judicial review in 2016 to compel the NRD director-general to replace the child’s patronymic “bin Abdullah” with the name of the child’s father in the birth certificate.

The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the couple in May last year, allowing the child to bear his father’s name instead of “bin Abdullah”, which is NRD’s default patronym for illegitimate Muslim children.

The NRD however, filed an appeal against the decision later. On September 8 last year, the Federal Court granted the NRD leave to appeal against the appeals court ruling.

Earlier, the couple’s lead counsel, K. Shanmuga, told the court that his clients did not object to the adjournment.

“In light of the reasons given and the indication that the executive will begin, today itself, to find a solution, I would agree to the request for an adjournment given that this involves the best interest of the child and other children involved in similar circumstances.

“Executive or legislative action is a more suitable avenue to resolve this problem. Because of that, I would agree to the request,” he added.

Sulaiman Abdullah, who represented the Johor Islamic Religious Council (MAIJ) as intervenor, objected: “My client just got word of this, and I’ve been instructed to object to any proposed adjournment.

“I am not in any way trying to belittle the abused. This involves the unalterable laws of Islam and, hence, I would submit with the greatest respect this is not going to be settled by executive or legislative means.

“If I may add, this matter has had a long history. The arguments before the legal panel were energetic, informed and passionate in some instances.

“Faced with such a situation, where the panel has received the views from all sides and considered the matter seriously, and now we are at the stage where judgment is ready to be delivered, then I would submit that this panel has no option but to deliver the judgment.

“To come at the very last moment is unfair to my client who has to deal with this situation and who is committed to preserving and enhancing the commandments of Islam.

“As counsel, we come to argue and we expect a decision. You’ve come to the fruition of your efforts but you do not pronounce (your judgment) today.

“If you adjourn now what would the public perception be? I’m sorry to bring this up at the court of law, but this is the apex court, you have to bring this into consideration.

“There’s must be something final to this decision, and there’s nothing more final than a court decision,” he said, adding that MAIJ maintains that by Islamic law, illegitimate child cannot take the father’s name.

In response, Shanmuga, said his clients have waited longer than the MAIJ, who only acted as intervenor after the case reached the higher courts.

“If anyone should be complaining about the length of time, it is my client. We want a solution to allow them to live peacefully. If the government intends to achieve a solution that encompasses more than a black and white letter of the law, and come out with a more creative solution… therefore, that is why, our client is willing to wait a bit longer.”

Later, when asked by Sulaiman whether today’s written judgment would be delivered at a later date, Ahmad said: “I’m not saying anymore than what I have said.” – November 22, 2018.