Lawyers’ group pans govt over 'buy time' excuse to appeal citizenship ruling
Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) has criticised the government for continuing its appeal over the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s recent declaration of automatic citizenship for overseas-born children of Malaysian mums and foreign dads.
The group said while it welcomes the government’s decision to amend the Federal Constitution on the citizenship issue, it refused to accept Putrajaya’s excuse that the appeal was made to “buy time” for the proposed amendment.
“[...] We are dismayed to learn that...
Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) has criticised the government for continuing its appeal over the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s recent declaration of automatic citizenship for overseas-born children of Malaysian mums and foreign dads.
The group said while it welcomes the government’s decision to amend the Federal Constitution on the citizenship issue, it refused to accept Putrajaya’s excuse that the appeal was made to “buy time” for the proposed amendment.
“[...] We are dismayed to learn that the government still refuses to withdraw its appeal at the Court of Appeal against the High Court’s ruling (Suriani Kempe & Others v Kerajaan Malaysia & Others) that children born overseas to Malaysian mothers are entitled to citizenship by operation of law.
“This decision, delivered on September 9, is in essence the very point of law that the amendment seeks to enforce, and thus there is no reason for the government to continue this appeal,” LFL coordinator Zaid Malek said in a statement today.
It said the excuse given by the government made no sense as the current decision is already in line with the proposed amendment, and it has the force of law.
Yesterday, Home Minister Hamzah Zainudin (above) told Dewan Rakyat the government decision to appeal the ruling in the Court of Appeal was to buy time to avoid contempt of court, and said they need more time to amend the Federal Constitution as provisions regarding citizenship require the consent of the Malay rulers.
Hamzah added that the government decided to amend the Federal Constitution due to conflicting rulings on similar issues.
LFL disagreed with Hamzah’s assessment, saying the ruling Hamzah was referring to does not prevent the government from following the latest ruling on the matter.
In the previous case of Mahisha Suhaila Abdul Majeed v National Registration Department (NRD) director and two others, the court ruled in favour of the government.
Mahisha later appealed to the Court of Appeals and the hearing is set for November 2021.
“The government could simply just concede to the appeal during the hearing at the Court of Appeal in November. The issue of contempt of court, therefore, does not arise,” LFL said on Mahisha’s case.
Rather than continuing its appeal, LFL suggested the government should instead focus on ensuring that the NRD complies with the court’s ruling while working to materialise the proposed amendment.
It said the KL High Court’s decision is in line with the government-proposed amendment, which allows the government to enforce the ruling until the amendment is finalised.
Malaysian mothers with foreign husbands were elated when the KL High Court ruled on Sept 9 that their children are automatically entitled to citizenship.
The court ruled constitutional provisions which only granted automatic citizenship to overseas-born children if the father is Malaysian but not if the mother is Malaysian, was discriminatory.
Their joy was, however, cut short a few days later when the government announced it will appeal the ruling in the Court of Appeals, despite opposition from many, including de facto law minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar.
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.