THE Federal Court will tomorrow rule on the question whether the Sarawak Shariah Court has jurisdiction over apostasy, or conversions out of Islam, when there is no express provision under the Shariah Court Ordinance 2001.

The bench decided to adjourn proceedings to tomorrow afters hearing submissions by the appellants and respondents in Kuching today.

The question was raised by three converts and a Malay Muslim-born woman who wants to renounce the religion.

They are asking if the jurisdiction could be read into the Shariah Court Ordinance by implication.

One of the four is Syarifah Nooraffyzza Wan Hosen, who left Islam voluntarily and embraced Christianity. Second is Tiong Choo Ting, a Chinese-Bidayuh Christian who converted to Islam to marry a Muslim woman and took on the Muslim name Mohd Syafiq Abdullah. After his wife died, he returned to Christianity. 

The third person is Salina Jau, an ethnic Kayan/Kenyah Christian who converted to Islam to marry a Malay-Muslim man. She was given the Muslim name of Salina Jau Abdullah but after her husband divorced her, she returned to Christianity. 

The fourth is Jenny Peter, a Melanau Christian who converted to Islam to marry a Muslim. She was given the Muslim name of Nur Muzdhalifah Abdullah. 

When the marriage ended in a divorce, she reverted to Christianity.

The lead counsel for the four, Baru Bian, in his submission had argued that the civil High Court has the jurisdiction to hear apostasy cases because the Shariah Court in Sarawak was “not clothed with that power to decide on apostasy cases as the Sarawak Shariah Court Ordinance 2001 does not provide for this issue to be dealt with by the Shariah Court”. 

Baru said letters from the Kuching Shariah Court confirmed too that it has no power to deal with apostasy cases. 

Deputy state Attorney-General, Saferi Ali, representing the Malaysian and Sarawak A-Gs in his submission, however told the court there is a law in Sarawak governing conversions in the state, and it fell under Sections 68 & 69 of the Majlis Islam Ordinance 2001.

Saferi said when the Shariah Court wrote to the four, it did not refer the draft the State A-G for vetting.

The court wrote the letters after the four had applied at a Kuching High Court for a judicial review for:

• A declaration that they are Christians;
• An order of mandamus (a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court) to compel the director of Sarawak Islamic Affairs Department/ Islamic Council to issue the letter of release from the religion of Islam – the Surat Murtad – to them; and,
• An order of mandamus to compel the the director-general of National Registration Department to drop the appellants’ religion as Islam in their identity cards and/or records and/or amend the particulars of the appellants’ religion held at the National Registry to that of Christianity.

They had, on various occasions, made applications to the  NRD to have their Muslim names on their MyKad changed to their non-Muslim names, while the Syarifah Noorafyza being Malay by ethnicity, prefers to use the name of Vanessa Elizabeth. 

Their applications were all rejected on the grounds that they have failed to obtain a letter of release from Islam from the Sarawak Department of Islamic Affairs. 

They were informed by the NRD that in order to process their applications for the change of name on their MyKad, they would need to have that letter declaring that they are no longer Muslim. 

After several attempts, the Sarawak Islamic Department, in letters informed them that “based on the Islamic Ordinances that are applicable and enforceable with respect to the Shariah courts in Sarawak, there are no provisions that confers jurisdiction upon the shariah courts to issue a declaration to leave Islam as required by the National Registration Department”.

Baru later told reporters he was taken aback by the law in the Majlis Islam Ordinance as the matter was never raised in arguments in the High Court and Court of Appeal.

However, Baru said his argument is that the provision cannot be implied and there must be an expressive provision.

The five-man bench is headed by Court of Appeal president Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Ahmad Maarop, Hasan Lah, Ramly Ali and Jeffrey Tan Kok Wha 

The case today attracted attention and the court was packed to standing room. – February 26, 2018.