Justice Alwi Abdul Wahab, citing the Federal Court’s decision in Rosliza Ibrahim v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor (2021), drew a clear distinction between renunciation and ab initio (from the outset) cases.
He explained that renunciation cases fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the shariah courts pursuant to Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, while ab initio cases — where a person claims never to have been a Muslim — may be heard by the civil courts.
“The factual matrix in this appeal establishes that the appellant converted to Islam in October 2007,” Alwi said in broad grounds delivered earlier this week.
Alwi, who sat with Justices Evrol Mariette Peters and Latifah Tahar, noted that the woman, 39, had stated in a police report that she converted voluntarily, and was issued a temporary conversion card and certificate.
She later obtained a new identity card bearing a Muslim name, with her religion stated as Islam, he added.
The court also noted that three officers from the Melaka Islamic religious council who witnessed the conversion testified that she had converted voluntarily, and had recited the kalimah syahadah — the Islamic declaration of faith — calmly and without coercion.
Alwi also referred to the woman’s post-conversion conduct — applying for financial assistance from the state Islamic authority, seeking a change of name and religion at the national registration department, and applying to the shariah court to marry a Muslim man.
“This is, therefore, a renunciation case, and the civil court lacks jurisdiction to grant the declaration sought,” he said.
The Court of Appeal also ruled that her claim was barred by delay, laches and acquiescence, as the originating summons was filed in 2022 — nearly 15 years after her conversion — without any reasonable explanation for the delay.
Alwi added that her subsequent practice of Hinduism was legally irrelevant, as the constitutional term “professing” Islam does not require actual practice of the faith.
“The High Court’s findings of fact were supported by evidence and were not plainly wrong,” he said.
The bench ordered the woman, represented by lawyers Rajesh Nagarajan and Amanda Sonia Mathew, to pay RM20,000 in costs to the council and the Melaka government.
Counsel Nazri Abdul Hamid appeared for the council, while senior federal counsel Khairul Azreem Mamat and federal counsel Nor Azizah Yusof represented the state government.