The Bar Council's stand on Article 11 of the Federal Constitution and consequently apostasy was questioned today in the Federal Court by a interested party holding a watching brief for the Lina Joy case.

In presenting his submission, legal advisor for the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (Abim) Zulkifli Nordin brought up the submission by counsel Malik Imtiaz Sarwar last Thursday.

Malik, representing the Bar Council, had said that Article 11 of the Federal Constitution allowed Lina Joy to choose the religion of her choice.

He had argued the Syariah courts did not have jurisdiction over persons who do not profess Islam and are not seized with the jurisdiction to make declarations with regard to persons who no longer profess Islam in their own right.

Zulkifli, who is an executive member of the Bar Council, contested that Malik's submission was not representative of the Bar Council's view.

"As far as I know as an executive member of the Bar Council, there has never been a discussion made by the Bar Council to take a stand in this case," he said. "I am shocked that the Bar Council has taken a stand. I will raise this issue at the next Bar Council meeting."

"There are three Bar Council members here (in court) who are unaware of the council's stand. But for the record, as far I know, there is no mandate for taking a partisan stand in this case," he told the apex court.

Judge interrupts

In reply, Malik said, "We've received a written instruction from the Bar Council to appear for the watching brief," he said.

"The position was taken by the Bar Council after the Court of Appeal decision and during the leave before the Federal Court. At that time, you weren't a Bar Council exco member yet," he told Zulkifli.

Zulkifli, however, stood up and insisted that "... 40 percent of the members in the Bar Council are Muslim and the position stated by Malik is not representative of the entire Bar Council."

Malik then stood up and said he and another counsel in the case were Muslims and Zulkifli was being unfair.

At this juncture, Justice Richard Malanjum interjected and told counsel to resolve their 'personal quarrel' in some other forum and not in court.

Joy - whose Muslim name was Azlina Jailani - converted to Christianity in 1998 and is married to a Christian man. She had successfully applied in 1998 to change her name but failed to have the entry 'Islam' deleted from her identity card. The questions posed before the Federal Court are:

  • If the NRD is legally entitled to impose as a requirement a certificate or a declaration or an order from the Syariah Court before deleting the entry of 'Islam' from the applicant's (Joy's) identity card;

  • If the NRD has correctly construed its powers under the National Registration Regulations 1990 to impose the above requirement when it is not expressly provided for in the regulations and;

  • Whether the landmark case of Soon Singh vs Perkim Kedah - which declared that the civil courts will retain their jurisdiction unless an express jurisdiction is conferred to Syariah Court - was rightly decided.