Nrd 2 Others Object To Legal Challenge Against Unilateral Conversion

---

 


The National Registration Department (NRD) and two others are objecting against a legal bid to strike down the unilateral, childhood conversion of an insurance agent.
In a court filing made on Dec 14 last year, the NRD director-general, government and Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) cited three main reasons for objecting to the legal challenge by the 40-year-old woman.
One of the reasons was that the legal bid was filed out of time, as her conversion was done on Oct 4, 1990.
They claimed that the time period for the filing of such judicial review leave application should have been filed within three months of the event, and that the filing period expired on Jan 4, 1991.
They cited Order 53 Rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012 for their contention that a judicial review leave application should be filed promptly, within three months from the date when the grounds for application arose, among others.
The respondents contended that in the absence of an extension of time by the court, then the court has no jurisdiction to hear the application.
The trio was referring to a judicial review leave application that seeks to nullify the childhood Islamic conversion of the woman. 
The woman claimed that her Muslim convert father converted her unilaterally in 1990 when she was 10 years old, without the consent of her mother, who continues to follow the Buddhist faith.
The trio makes up the respondents targeted in the insurance agent’s legal action. Their court filing was done by the Attorney-General's Chambers.
In the court filing sighted by Malaysiakini, the respondents contend that the civil High Court in Kuala Lumpur has no jurisdiction to hear a legal action involving a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court.
They cited, among others, Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution, which states that the civil High Courts of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak, shall have no jurisdiction over matters within the purview of the Syariah courts.
“Since the said declaration falls within the jurisdiction of the Syariah High Court, this honourable court, as a civil High Court, has no jurisdiction to grant the declaration sought by the applicant by virtue of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution.
“Therefore, the AG (Attorney-General) submits that leave for judicial review should be refused by this honourable court in relation to the declaration sought by the applicant,” the respondents contended.
They also claimed that due to a 2007 Federal Court legal precedent, the insurance agent has no arguable case and that the NRD is justified in asking her to first get the Syariah Court to determine her religious status.
The respondents are referring to the 2007 Federal Court decision, which dismissed Lina Joy’s appeal to remove the word “Islam” from her identity card (IC).
In the majority verdict, the apex court ruled that the Christian convert needed to get the Syariah Court order certifying her renouncement of Islam, before the NRD could drop the word “Islam” from her IC. - Mkini

---