The Court of Appeal today upheld the Kuala Lumpur High Court decision two years ago to lift the Home Ministry’s book ban on the book Muslim Women and the Challenge of Islamic Extremism by SIS Forum.

The court ruled that the book was “not prejudicial to public order”.

Justice Abdul Wahab Patail, who headed the three-member panel, said the decision by then home minister (Syed Hamid Albar) to ban the book was “unreasonable and irrational”.

muslim women and the challenge of islamic extremism noraini othman This was because the book had already been in the market for more than two years before it was banned by the government.

“The trial judge was right to rule the minister’s order had no objectivity in ruling that it would disrupt public order,” Justice Abdul Wahab said.

“If this book is said to be against the Islamic Advancement Department’s (Jakim) guideline, it does not address the issue where it (the book) is prejudicial to public order,” he said.

Justice Abdul Wahab said the minister did not consider all conditions and scenarios when ordering the book banned.

Section 7(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 provides condition for the minister to use his absolute power to ban a book.

This is only after he is satisfied that the publication contains any manner prejudicial or likely to be prejudicial to public order, morality, security, the relationship with any foreign country or government, or which is contrary to any law.

“However, the minister acted unreasonably and irrationally in issuing the ban. In judicial review applications, the court is allowed to review any unreasonable administration decision made,” the judge said.

Judgment delayed by three hours

Today's unanimous decision came after three-hour delay when one of the judges in the panel was not in attendance.

Court of Appeal judge Justice Clement Allen Skinner is away in Kota Kinabalu to attend another hearing there.

Justice Abdul Wahab apologised for the three-hour delay in delivering the judgment, saying he had to email the judgment to Justice Skinner before the judge concurred with the decision.

kuala terengganu by election 140109 syed hamid albar The other judge present was High Court judge Justice Mah Weng Kwai.

The court also ordered Syed Hamid (ie the government), who is appealing the decision, to pay RM20,000 as costs.

The editor of the book, Prof Norani Othman, when met after the decision was delivered said she has been vindicated by the ruling as it had been a long battle.

“The book is an academic work and is also used by International Islamic University students. Just because it did not follow some of Jakim's guidelines does not make it bad, since it is an academic study,” Norani said.

SIS Forum was represented by K Shanmuga, while Syed Hamid, who filed the appeal against the High Court decision, was represented by senior federal counsel Norhisham Ismail.

Book was banned on July 31, 2008

The book was banned by the Home Ministry’s publication unit as it found the book was “prejudicial to public order” on July 31, 2008, despite the book having been on the market since 2005.

NONE After attempts by SIS to overturn the ban failed, it filed a judicial review application in the KL High Court on Dec 15, 2008, where it named then home minister Syed Hamid Albar as the respondent.

After obtaining leave, Justice Mohamad Ariff Mohd Yusof lifted the ban on the book on the grounds it was not a threat to public security.

In delivering the High Court judgment on Jan 25, 2010, Justice Mohamad Ariff said he failed to see how the book could disrupt public order, as alleged by the Home Ministry.

“The book has been in circulation since 2005 but was only banned in 2008. Throughout the two years that it had been made available, there is no proof to suggest it had affected public order,” said Mohamad Ariff.

“Furthermore, the Home Ministry, through its publication controls unit and the Islamic Advancement Department, had only identified seven out of 215 pages that are said to be offensive. However, I failed to find the said pages and passages cited to be offensive,” ruled the High Court judge.

SIS: Judgment is significant

Meanwhile, SIS or Sisters-in-Islam welcomed the judgment and also called for the repeal of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA)

“This Court of Appeal judgment is significant as it firmly affirms a judicial trend to interpret generously Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression.

“Any limitations allowed under the law must be read restrictively, and these restrictions must also be reasonable,” SIS said in a statement.

The ruling also  reinforces the court’s jurisdiction in reviewing ministerial decisions on issues of fundamental liberties, it said, quoting lead judge Justice Abdul Wahab’s words: “It is the duty of the court to interfere if a decision maker has misunderstood the law...”

The SIS statement added: “The judge said the court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction in reviewing administrative decisions to ascertain whether there has been an abuse or misuse of administrative discretion, and whether it was fairly and justly exercised.

“This judg ment once again reveals that such wide discretionary powers under the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) 1984 granted to the hoe minister rendering it open to abuse and the violation of fundamental liberties.”