A COURT of appeal judge today said that he had been reprimanded by a top judge for writing a dissenting judgment in the unilateral conversion case of M. Indira Gandhi two years ago.

Hamid Sultan Abu Backer said he was not surprised that he was not assigned or empaneled after that case to hear those related to the federal constitution and public interest matters.

Hamid Sultan said he, however, managed to raise the matter of constitutional oath jurisprudence in some of the civil and commercial cases.

“After the judgment was released to the public, a top judge called up (and) severely reprimanded me, accusing me of, among other things, judicial activism. Not only that, but he started throwing tantrums at me in an uncivilised manner.

“I stood my ground. My response to that top judge was that I did not have to defend my judgment and would not be cowed to act against my oath of office.

“This incident created a long-term strained relationship with that judge and many more,” he said in his speech at the International Malaysia Law Conference entitled “Judiciary as The Principal Guardians of The Rule of Law”.

On December 30, 2015, the court of appeal in a 2-1 majority decision ruled that the validity of three children’s conversion by their Muslim convert father could only be determined by the shariah court.

Justice Balia Yusof Wahi, chairing a three-member bench that included justices Hamid Sultan and Badariah Sahamid, held that matters relating to Islam, religious issues, and whether a person is Muslim, fell exclusively under the shariah court.

Concurring with him was Badariah, while Hamid Sultan dissented.

Hamid Sultan, in his 74-page written judgment dated January 5, 2016, said the civil high court had the power to decide on the validity of conversion certificates, as the primary issues did not involve the shariah court.

The panel made the ruling after allowing appeals by the director of the Perak Islamic Religious Department and two others – the government of Malaysia, Education Ministry, and the children’s father, Muhd Riduan Abdullah, formerly known as K. Patmanathan.

The six appellants were appealing against the Ipoh civil high court’s decision quashing the certificates of conversion of the three children.

In 2009, the Ipoh shariah high court gave Riduan custody of his two boys and a daughter after he converted them to Islam in April 2009 when the children were aged 12 and 11 years, and 11 months.

The Ipoh civil high court had also declared the custody order as null and void as the shariah high court had no jurisdiction to grant the custody order when the other party (the mother) was not a Muslim.

The court made the order after allowing a judicial review application by Indira, a kindergarten teacher, for an order that the certificates of conversion were null and void and of no effect.

Hamid Sultan said he also took the strong view that without a judiciary committed to “judicial dynamism”, the rule of law would be meaningless and corruption as well as kleptocracy could not be arrested.

He said he did not support judicial activism, but subscribed to “judicial dynamism”.

“In addition and notwithstanding that I have a large fellowship in the Malaysian Bar – when writing judgments I don’t have any friends or enemies and all my judgments are conscious judgments subscribing to my oath of office.

“On a personal note, I would like to place on record that I have been greatly affected by the debate related to judicial activism, passivism, and dynamism in the judiciary itself.

“I am continuously being harassed for some of my decisions, directly or indirectly. If a royal commission is appointed, I will gladly give my reasons,” he said.

Retired federal court judge Gopal Sri Ram said in his speech that he agreed that the judiciary are the principal guardians of the rule of law in the country, because they are tasked to function by the words of the constitution .

However, he said the judiciary had failed for many years because they applied the constitution’s provisions literally, whereas there were wide clauses in the constitution.

“There was a great desire to protect the executive at one time, and because of that, they gave narrow interpretations to wide clauses,” he said. – Bernama, August 16, 2018.