The Alor Setar High Court dismissed GISBH and CEO’s bid to challenge the Kedah fatwa declaring their teachings deviant, citing lack of jurisdiction.
PUTRAJAYA: The Alor Setar High Court has dismissed an application by GISB Holdings Sdn Bhd (GISBH) and its Chief Executive Officer, Nasiruddin Mohd Ali, for leave to initiate judicial review proceedings to challenge a state fatwa issued against them last year.
The fatwa, issued by the Kedah State Fatwa Committee on Feb 12 last year, ruled that the beliefs, teachings, tenets and practices of GISBH members and followers were deviant and contrary to Islamic teachings.
The committee also ruled that any Muslim who acted in contravention of the fatwa committed an offence under the Syariah Criminal Offences Enactment (Kedah Darul Aman) 2014 and was liable to legal action under the laws in force in Kedah.
Judge Evawani Farisyta Mohammad dismissed the application by GISBH and Nasiruddin after allowing the Attorney General’s objection to their application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings.
In the grounds of judgment dated Sept 7, which was uploaded on the judiciary’s website, the judge said the contents of the fatwa were based on Syariah law and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah Court, meaning that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to determine the matter.
“…this court, regarding the reliefs sought by the applicants (GISBH and Nasiruddin), is essentially being asked to review the content or substance of the fatwa and to quash it,” she said.
Judge Evawani also said the fatwa referred to individuals involved with GISBH rather than GISBH as a corporate entity.
She noted that the fatwa was issued pursuant to the prerogative powers of the Sultan of Kedah and was therefore a decision that was non-justiciable and could not be challenged through judicial review.
In their application for leave, GISBH and Nasiruddin had sought an order of certiorari to quash the decision made by the respondents through the issuance of the fatwa.
The applicants named the Kedah State Fatwa Committee, Kedah State Islamic Religious Council and Mufti of Kedah as respondents.
Nasiruddin and GISBH claimed that the fatwa had adversely affected their operations and reputation, as well as those of individuals associated with them, and had resulted in them being perceived as followers of deviant teachings.
The Attorney General objected to the application on the grounds that the fatwa was not subject to judicial review or adjudication, as it constituted an exercise of the Ruler’s prerogative powers.
