Terengganu Sharia High Court executes against the law

4

The execution that took place at the Kuala Terengganu Sharia High Court is a travesty and a grave miscarriage of justice, says Justice for Sisters and Sisters in Islam.

The Kuala Terengganu Sharia High Court today executed six strokes of the cane against two women charged with “attempting to have sex” under Section 30 and 59(1) of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Takzir Terengganu).

The caning contravenes several legal provisions, including the Prison Act 1995 and Prison Regulations 2000.

The women were each sentenced to a fine of RM3,300 and six strokes of the cane each on 12 August by Sharia judge Kamalruazmi Ismail.

The Prison Act 1955 and the Prison Regulations 2000 stipulates that caning can only be carried out against prisoners. As the sentences of the two women did not include imprisonment, they were not considered prisoners as defined by the Prison Act and Prison Regulations. This, despite the fact that they were sentenced to caning. The Kuala Terengganu Sharia High Court and the Malaysian Prisons Department therefore may have acted against the law in its execution today.

Malaysia’s laws are inconsistent in relation to caning of women. Section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibits corporal punishment against female prisoners of any age. However, provisions under the Sharia law allows women to be caned. These inconsistencies create confusion in the jurisdiction of the Prisons Department, thus directly affecting the rights of women in Malaysia protected by Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution against gender discrimination.

The role of the federal government is brought into question as the unlawful execution was carried out by the Prisons Department under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Questions are raised on why the execution was authorised and officers from the department appointed to carry out the sentence.

The execution that took place at the Kuala Terengganu Sharia High Court is a travesty and a grave miscarriage of justice.

Justice for Sisters
Sisters in Islam
3 September 2018

Definitions or prisoner

The Prison Act 1995 defines a prisoner as a person, whether convicted or not, under confinement in a prison and in relation to a convicted prisoner, includes a prisoner released on parole.

The Prison Regulations 2000 defines convicted prisoner”” as a person who is convicted by the court and has been sentenced to imprisonment.

Section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code

No sentence of whipping shall be executed by instalments and none of the following persons shall be punishable with whipping

a. Female
b. Males sentenced to death
c. Males whom the court considers to be more than 50 years of of age, except males sentenced to whipping under section 376, 377C, 377CA, or 377E of the Penal Code

Thanks for dropping by! The views expressed in Aliran's media statements and the NGO statements we have endorsed reflect Aliran's official stand. Views and opinions expressed in other pieces published here do not necessarily reflect Aliran's official position.

Our voluntary writers work hard to keep these articles free for all to read. But we do need funds to support our struggle for Justice, Freedom and Solidarity. To maintain our editorial independence, we do not carry any advertisements; nor do we accept funding from dubious sources. If everyone reading this was to make a donation, our fundraising target for the year would be achieved within a week. So please consider making a donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB Bank account number 8004240948.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Khong Kah Yeong
Khong Kah Yeong
7 Sep 2018 9.07pm

SIS has pointed out an interesting but contrasting legal provision between the Civil Court and the Shariah Court for the Prisons Department. if they really feel that there had been a travesty and a grave miscarriage of justice, should they not take up the case on a free basis on behalf of the victims as a test case? The judgement from that case should settle once and for all where the Prisons department’s jurisdiction should be. Right?

Dr.SNaidu
Dr.SNaidu
4 Sep 2018 1.15pm

It is a violation of our Constitution-an erosion of one’s God-given human rights as such. In our new Malaysian trajectory of the national life, we need to let the state religious heads-the good sultans, heads of states and the religious administrations, monitor and administer all Islamic religious matters fully. The syariah courts need to be ‘restudied’. The simple and trusting Muslim society need to be spiritually, ‘Islamically’ rightly ‘educated’ well today, so that they can progress with all Malaysians learning along too, towards a vibrant and resilient Malaysia. There are also others living side by side with one another in our beloved nation.Let’s project our hearts towards the future. …

J. D. Lovrenciear
3 Sep 2018 11.17pm

The clock of progressive justice has been set back. God forbid that other States follow suit. Malaysians have failed to see to the blossoming of justice in the country and if we continue to be mere voices in the wilderness the country may sooner than we imagined plunge into a taliban like State.

Jamaluddin Ishak
Jamaluddin Ishak
4 Sep 2018 4.29pm

Which caning procedure more cruel and inhuman Civil Court Caning or Shariah Court Caning