Syed Iskandar Syed-Jaafar-al-Mahdzar said every citizen has a constitutionally-guaranteed right of access to justice.
“As a lawyer, the minister should know that any attempt to deter access to justice is a serious contempt of court. The House of Lords in Raymond v Honey laid this down,” he said.
Instead, of trying to interfere with the justice system, Syed Iskandar said Takiyuddin Hassan should ensure that no unconstitutional laws were passed by state legislators.
He said this in response to Takiyuddin who called for no further challenges to be made against state laws.
Takiyuddin, who is also PAS secretary-general, said the party would continue its efforts to harmonise civil law, based on English common law, with Islamic law.
However, he said, the party was worried that “if the judiciary decides a case because of public pressure, this will lead to future implications that do not benefit the country”.
Last Thursday, a nine-member Federal Court bench declared Section 28 of the Shariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) as null and void, as the primary power to enact criminal laws lies with Parliament.
The ruling was made on a petition by a 35-year old man who had been charged in the shariah court for “attempting to commit sexual intercourse against the order of nature” with other men.
Meanwhile, lawyer Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali said the apex court did not label the offence as unIslamic, instead choosing to focus on the constitutionality of the enactment.
“Only that Selangor or state legislatures cannot enact unnatural sex as an offence as it comes under Federal list,” he said.
Rafique said there already existed offences like sodomy and buggery under the Penal Code which applied to Muslim and non-Muslims.
Those found guilty could be jailed up to 20 years, fined or whipped up to 24 times if the male offender is 50 years and below.
He said this in response to Umno deputy president Mohamad Hasan’s statement on Saturday that the Federal Court’s decision has raised more confusion following its verdict.
Mohamad said the highest court’s ruling had also drawn questions over the implications on harmonisation of the civil and shariah courts.