PUTRAJAYA, MALAYSIA, June 21, 2006: Which should have jurisdiction to hear the case of former commando M. Moorthy Mohamad Abdullah’s religious conversion and his subsequent burial as a Muslim – the syariah or civil court? This was the primary question the Court of Appeal was interested in during an appeal by Moorthy’s widow S. Kaliammal, against a High Court’s dismissal of her application to bury her husband as a Hindu because the Syariah High Court had already declared him a Muslim convert. Lawyers, Moorthy’s family members, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) including religious bodies and reporters who had earlier expected lengthy submissions in the high-profile case, were caught off-guard when the court instructed lawyers to prepare written submissions in four weeks on the question of jurisdiction. Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Mokhtar Sidin, who presided with Datuk Denis Ong Jiew Fook and Datuk Abdul Aziz Mohamad, said this was a case of public interest and “we must make a very careful decision.” “The only question before us is on whether the civil High Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. If the court agrees that the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the case, we will send back the case to the High Court,” he said.
Moorthy’s conversion gained national attention after the Everest climber, 36, died in a hospital last December 20 (2005) from a head injury following a fall at home. After his death, a tug-of-war for his body occurred between Kaliammal, who only found out about her husband’s conversion when he was in a coma, and the Federal Territory Islamic Affairs Council. In the ensuing court battle, the Syariah High Court on December 22 (2005) declared Moorthy a Muslim and allowed the Islamic Affairs Council to bury him as a Muslim. Kaliammal, filed an appeal on January 24 (2006) with the Court of Appeal, citing 50 grounds, against the High Court’s decision that dismissed her application to bury her husband according to Hindu rites. The Bar Council, the Malaysian Consultative Council for Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism, the Syariah Practising Lawyers’ Association, and human rights NGOs Suaram and Hakam held watching briefs in the hearing, while the International Commission of Jurists was observer.