The Star
By SHAILA KOSHY
On Nov 12, the Federal Court rejected a referral application by Shamala, who is embroiled in a custody battle with her estranged Muslim convert husband Dr Muhammad Ridzwan, formerly known as Dr Jeyaganesh C. Mogarajah.
The five-man panel said that since Shamala, believed to be overseas with her two sons, had avoided the contempt proceedings brought by her husband, it was reluctant to give her further opportunity to hear constitutional issues regarding the validity of the children’s conversion.
The court also accepted a preliminary objection from her husband that she must face the contempt proceedings before she had the right to be heard.
In a statement, Lim said the apex court should have fulfilled its responsibility to right an injustice, no matter how difficult or divisive the issues were.
He said the decision disregarded the dilemma faced by a parent in Shamala’s situation.
“It does not take into account the circumstances that caused her to leave the jurisdiction, which stemmed from her estranged husband’s initial and indefensible action in converting their children without her knowledge or consent.”
Lim said it should have exercised its discretion, adding that insistence on a strict rule regarding contempt of court was unjust in this case.
He said the Cabinet directive in April 2009 that children should not be converted from their original religion without the joint consent of both parents was merely a policy statement without real effect.
As such, he said the Bar urged the Government to amend the relevant laws to fully implement this directive.
By SHAILA KOSHY
KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian Bar wants the Government to resolve the impasse in conversion cases through Parliament, saying the courts have openly relinquished their responsibility.
Bar vice-president Lim Chee Wee said they were disappointed that the Federal Court had refused to decide on the issues of law in the S. Shamala case last week although it was presented with a “clear opportunity to resolve fundamental questions that affect public interest”.
“By side-stepping these significant issues, the Federal Court failed to be decisive, and abdicated its role as the ultimate arbiter in disputes involving constitutional questions and jurisdictional conflict.”
Bar vice-president Lim Chee Wee said they were disappointed that the Federal Court had refused to decide on the issues of law in the S. Shamala case last week although it was presented with a “clear opportunity to resolve fundamental questions that affect public interest”.
“By side-stepping these significant issues, the Federal Court failed to be decisive, and abdicated its role as the ultimate arbiter in disputes involving constitutional questions and jurisdictional conflict.”
On Nov 12, the Federal Court rejected a referral application by Shamala, who is embroiled in a custody battle with her estranged Muslim convert husband Dr Muhammad Ridzwan, formerly known as Dr Jeyaganesh C. Mogarajah.
The five-man panel said that since Shamala, believed to be overseas with her two sons, had avoided the contempt proceedings brought by her husband, it was reluctant to give her further opportunity to hear constitutional issues regarding the validity of the children’s conversion.
The court also accepted a preliminary objection from her husband that she must face the contempt proceedings before she had the right to be heard.
In a statement, Lim said the apex court should have fulfilled its responsibility to right an injustice, no matter how difficult or divisive the issues were.
He said the decision disregarded the dilemma faced by a parent in Shamala’s situation.
“It does not take into account the circumstances that caused her to leave the jurisdiction, which stemmed from her estranged husband’s initial and indefensible action in converting their children without her knowledge or consent.”
Lim said it should have exercised its discretion, adding that insistence on a strict rule regarding contempt of court was unjust in this case.
He said the Cabinet directive in April 2009 that children should not be converted from their original religion without the joint consent of both parents was merely a policy statement without real effect.
As such, he said the Bar urged the Government to amend the relevant laws to fully implement this directive.
No comments:
Post a Comment