The Federal Court has set Aug 13 to hear arguments by the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Council (MAIWP) on whether Islamic laws are subjected to the fundamental liberties guaranteed in the federal constitution.

MAIWP’s counsel, Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said the council had taken a different stand in the appeal of the case of a non-Muslim lawyer, Victoria Jayaseele Martin who was seeking to be admitted as Syariah lawyer in the Federal Territories.

He said with the new argument which was never raised before, both the respondent (Martin) and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) wanted to study and come up with a considered submission on that issue.

Meanwhile, Martin’s counsel, Ranjit Singh, said the Federal Court granted an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal brought by MAIWP and the AGC which was scheduled for today.

“This is a new point of monumental constitutional importance,” he said, adding that the adjournment was also granted to enable the Attorney-General’s Chambers to decide on its stand on the issue.

The appeal consequently went for case management before Federal Court deputy registrar Khainur Aleeza Ismail who fixed Aug 13 to hear the appeal by MAIWP and AGC against a Court of Appeal ruling that non-Muslim lawyers were eligible to practise as Syariah lawyers in the Syariah courts of the Federal Territories.

The Court of Appeal, which was led by then-court of appeal judge Abu Samah Nordin (now Federal Court judge), declared Rule 10 of the Rules of the Syariah Lawyers 1993 mandating that only Muslims could be admitted as Syariah lawyers was ultra vires the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993.

The Court of Appeal had overturned a High Court decision which disallowed Martin’s judicial review, ruling that MAIWP had powers under the law to set conditions for admitting Syariah lawyers.

Martin, 53, had obtained a Diploma in Syariah Laws and Practice from the International Islamic University, Malaysia (IIUM) in 2004.

Meanwhile, Khainur Aleeza also set Aug 13 for hearing of the appeal by the Negri Sembilan government and four others over the appellate court’s landmark decision which declared invalid the state Syariah enactment that criminalises Muslim men for cross-dressing.

The matter also came up for case management before her today.

Lawyer Aston Paiva, representing the three transgenders, said the Federal Court would hear the cross-dressing appeal and MAIWP’s appeal in Martin’s case on the same day because the Negri Sembilan government had raised a similar issue.

“I am not sure whether the same bench would hear our appeal,” he said.

Leave to appeal obtained on Jan 27

The Negri Sembilan government, Negeri Sembilan Department of Islamic Religious Affairs, its director, Negri Sembilan Syariah enforcement chief and the Negri Sembilan Chief Syarie prosecutor obtained leave from the Federal Court on Jan 27, this year to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision.

On Nov 7, last year, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal brought by the three transgenders - Muhamad Juzaili Mohamad Khamis, 26; Syukor Jani, 28; and Wan Fairol Wan Ismail, 30 - and declared invalid and unconstitutional section 66 of the Negri Sembilan Syariah Criminal (Negri Sembilan) Enactment 1992 which criminalises Muslim men for cross-dressing.

In their judicial review application, Muhammad Juzaili, Syukor and Wan Fairol, who were bridal make-up artists, claimed that section 66 did not apply to them as Gender Identity Disorder sufferers.

They claimed that they had submitted a medical report from the Kuala Lumpur Hospital, certifying that they were suffering from the medical condition to which they had the tendency to cross-dress as they felt the essence of their identity to be that of a woman.

- Bernama