I refer to Fathima Idris' letter Judgment didn't say syariah courts were 'inferior' which was in reply to my letter Secular' imprecise and apt to be misunderstood .

May I first say that my aim in writing as I did was not to cause 'tensions and animosity in our society' nor was it intended to distort. It was my honest view of what the judgment meant. I may have been wrong, but I did take great care in reading the judgment of the Federal Court and the conclusions I drew were honest.

Be that as it may, I do not believe I was wrong and I stand by all of what I wrote, even though I am open to other interpretations. I do not wish to engage is a full legal debate in this forum, there are more appropriate ones for that. But I would just like to say two things:

It is still my view that the Federal Court in Latifah Bte Mat Zin v Rosmawati Binti Sharibun declared that the syariah courts are inferior courts within the Federation of Malaysia. I drew that from the following statement of Federal Court Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad (see p 25 of the judgment) (and indeed Fathima Idris referred to it as well and indeed I do see the argument she makes of it as plausible):

'In fact, the position of the Syariah courts, in this respect, is similar to the Session Courts and the Magistrates' Courts. In respect of the last two mentioned courts, which the Constitution calls 'inferior courts', Article 121(1) merely says, omitting the irrelevant parts: '121(1) There shall be [...] such inferior courts as may be provided by federal law [...]'.

If the syariah courts are said to be similar in position to the sessions courts and magistrates' Courts (in respect of their creation), and the latter courts are characterised by the Constitution as 'inferior courts', then surely, in that context, the position of the respective courts, the syariah courts (which are similar in position) should also be inferior courts.

But, frankly, leaving this aside, there are many other reasons why it is clear that syariah courts are inferior courts. Let me give you one, albeit controversial, example. If a syariah court wrongly exercises jurisdiction over a non-Muslim, can the High Court intervene? The answer is yes. But if a civil court wrongly exercises jurisdiction over a Muslim, can the Syariah Court intervene? The answer is no. Only a superior civil court can do that.

Fatima Idris says that my second point that Article 121(1A) was not introduced for the purpose of ousting the jurisdiction of the civil courts 'is also not correct.' May I just quote Abdul Hamid Mohamad (see p 36 of the Judgment):

'[Article 121(1A)] was not introduced for the purpose of ousting the jurisdiction of the civil courts.'

May I conclude by pointing out that the Court of Appeal in the recent decision of Koh Wan Kuan v PP (12 July 2007) has unanimously concluded that the High Court, despite the 1988 amendment to Article 121 of the Constitution, still remains fully vested with the judicial power of the Federation, including inherent, residual and supervisory. This has enormous implications for the ongoing debate over the jurisdictional grasp of the syariah courts versus the civil courts.