PUTRAJAYA, April 28 — In an attempt to resolve yet another high-profile conversion case, the Court of Appeal here decided to refer five Constitutional questions to the Federal Court.
In November 2002, Dr M. Jeyaganesh embraced Islam. A few days later, he converted his two sons Saktiswaran and Theisviswaran without their mother’s knowledge.
Shamala, a Hindu woman, had taken Dr Jeyaganesh to the High Court for custody of their children in December that same year.
Meanwhile, Dr Jeyaganesh who is now known as Muhammad Ridzwan Mogarajah had also filed for custody but in the Syariah Court. He was granted custody a month later.
After multiple lawsuits and counter-suits, both parties finally agreed to put their case before the Court of Appeal.
Today, the three-man bench led by Datuk Zulkifli Ahmad Makinuddin made the decision under Article 128(2) of the Federal Constitution.
The five questions, drafted by the two counsels for Shamala and Dr Muhammad Ridzwan, together with input from the bench, are as follows:
1.Whether Section 95(b) of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 (Act 505) is ultra vires Article 12 (4) and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, read in their proper context?
2. Whether Section 95(b) of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 (Act 505), as State law, is by reason of Article 75 of the Federal Constitution, inconsistent with a Federal law, namely, Section 5(1) of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 (as amended) and is therefore invalid?
3. In the context of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, where a custody order is made by the Syariah Court or the High Court, on the basis that it has jurisdiction to do so, whether there is jurisdiction for the other court to make a conflicting order ?
4. Where there has been a conversion of the children of a civil marriage into Islam by one parent without the consent of the other parent, whether the rights of remedy under Part II of the Federal Constitution of the non-Muslim parent is vested in the High Court?
5. Whether in the context of Articles 8, 11, 12(4) and 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, the Syariah Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of conversion of a minor into Islam once the minor has been registered by the Registrar of Muallafs (Majlis Agama Islam)?
Shamala was not present in court today and is believed to have left Malaysia with the two children in tow.
Dr Muhammad Ridzwan, an anaesthesiologist at a hospital in Kedah, was present in court. He appeared calm throughout the hearing.
“I have had zero contact with them for five years,” he told reporters later, adding that he missed his children terribly.
“Despite my best efforts to contact my family, it has led nowhere as all I know is, they are somewhere in Australia. The Australian High Commission will not co-operate with my lawyer’s appeal for information because there are privacy laws involved.
“I have no problems with joint-custody because I just want to be able to see my children,” he said.
“The affidavits clearly show that she is the one who left me and took the kids, not the other way around. I don’t even know if they are healthy, let alone what religion they are practicising but for me, I want us to find a compromise whereby I respect her faith and she respects mine and that is how we can raise the children,” he elaborated.
The 41 year-old went on to say that the children, who are now aged eight and nine, are old enough to decide for themselves whether they want to be Muslim or not even though legally they can only decide at 18 years of age.
“But there are many cases in Malaysia where a child is raised as both Buddhist and Christian because the parents are of different faiths and then the child eventually decides which religion is preferred,” he argued.
He said he agreed with the recent Cabinet policy directing children of Muslim converts to remain in their original religion until they can decide for themselves.
But he qualified that the decision must be fine-tuned so that it is “not just a blanket statement that doesn’t really resolve anything as it is not specific enough now.”
He admitted his practice had suffered as a result of this case, which has dragged on for more than seven years.
“This is a very difficult thing for me. What father can be happy without seeing his children for such a long time?” he asked.
No comments:
Post a Comment