Malay rights group Perkasa's application to be an amicus curae (friend of the court) in Mohamed Tawfik Ismail's suit against the proposed amendments to the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355) was today dismissed by the High Court in Kuala Lumpur.

The decision was made by Justice Kamaludin Md Said in chambers, with no order on costs.

Rosli Dahlan, the lawyer of Tawfik, who is is the son of former deputy prime minister Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, told reporters that Perkasa had, in wanting to intervene, presented itself as a neutral body.

However, Rosli said, he showed to the court previous reports of Perkasa's participation in various protests, which portrayed the group as a Malay rights group, and as racist.

"Hence, how can it portray itself to be neutral," he asked, adding that the various statements issued by Perkasa were also shown to the judge.

It was reported on April 19 that Perkasa had applied to share its views on the proposed amendment to Act 355, as it was a neutral party and wanted to bring up whether the consent or the consultation of the Conference of Rulers was required before proposed amendments to law are tabled in the Dewan Rakyat.

Senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan appeared for the Attorney-General's Chambers, which is representing Dewan Rakyat Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia, named as defendant in Tawfik's suit. 

Tawfik had filed the suit on March 31, seeking to prohibit the Dewan Rakyat from allowing PAS President Abdul Hadi Awang's motion on Act 355, or any motion with similar characteristics, to be tabled and debated in Parliament. 

'Malay rulers are heads of Islam'

Rosli explained to reporters that his client is against the tabling of the motion as it is deemed unconstitutional, as the Malay rulers are also heads of Islam in their respective states.

“Hence, how could a federal law, which affects the rights of Muslims in every statem, be tabled without getting the go-ahead from the respective Malay rulers?" he asked. 

This is also against Article 38 (2) and Article 38 (4) of the Federal Constitution, where subsection (2) states the conference of rulers may deliberate and may deliberate on questions of national policy and any other matter that it thinks fit.

Subsection (4) states that no law directly affecting the privileges, position, honours or dignities of the Rulers shall be passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.

“How can the amendment to the Act be passed and the government expect the Yang di Pertuan Agong to stamp or ascent the bill, without it being deliberated or bypassing the conference of rulers. We do not want to see the Yang di Pertuan Agong to be placed in such a position.

“This concerns the rights of the individual rulers. Tawfik's challenge against the tabling of the amendment to Act 355 is to uphold and respect the position of the rulers as they are the heads of Islam,” Rosli said. 

Rosli added that the court has fixed Aug 16 for the hearing of Tawfik's application.