The announcement by the Prime Minister of Malaysia during the 12th Syariah Officers Conference in July, 2010 on the appointment of two women as judges in the Shariah court, has been applauded by many women-related NGOs. Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak hoped that “these appointments would enhance justice in all cases, including those involving families and women’s rights.”
Surprisingly the appointment has also attracted international media. US and World News, for example reported that it is a move praised by women’s rights activist and considered “a boost for a judicial system often accused of favoring men.”
Muslim women in Malaysia owe all this to Datuk Seri Jamil Khir, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department. With technical assistance from Tan Sri Ibrahim Lembut, the Director-General/Chief Justice of the Shariah Judiciary, the whole process took only half a year though the struggle for it (especially through the women NGOs and Datuk Seri Shahrizat Jalil, Minister at the Ministry for Women, Family and Community Development) has started for more than a decade ago.
A prevailing fatwa issued in 2006 facilitated the whole process. Though the fatwa was issued four years ago, specifically on 6th April 2006, it needs a new Minister to make it happen.
This shows how political will supported by enabling environment for change can make great things happen.
These appointments are significant because it has paved the way for more women to be appointed at a higher level in future. It has a “snowballing effect” in that other States in Malaysia have started to show interest as well in appointing women as Shariah court judges.
At the international level, Malaysia would not have any big problem with reporting to the CEDAW Committee of the United Nations except to move up to another level, i.e., fulfilling the 30 percent quota of women at decision-making level.
Reporting to the United Nations is a secondary matter but acknowledgment of the fact that the presence of women on the bench is important, because it will make the legal system less alien and more relevant to the female half of the population.
These appointments would also instill public confidence especially among women in the legitimacy and impartiality of the justice system.
On top of that, these appointments would also best serve available human resources because the current ratio of women law graduates to men law graduates is 60:40. In fact, their academic performances are better than their male counterparts.
The Shariah Chief Justice has also seen how the existing “glass-ceiling” obstructs career path for women who choose to be in the Islamic judiciary. Under the current system, they are stuck in the same post because they could not go anywhere up.
Since the appointments of the two women, there were questions raised by reporters from the international media, specifically The New York Times – on whether they will be prevented from hearing certain cases.
The reporters have seen certain Muslim countries such as Sudan allowing their women judges to hear all cases; but Egypt, on the other hand, bars their women judges from hearing criminal cases. What is the position in Malaysia?
The Department of Shariah Judiciary discussed this issue at the Meeting of Chief Justices of all States in Malaysia in 2009. It was only in July 2010, after intense debate and careful consideration, that these women judges are given the same jurisdiction as their male counterparts.
The existing jurisdiction though termed as criminal offences under the Syariah, its hudud (crimes with fixed punishment) or qisas (retribution) punishment – which could be death as the maximum penalty – are not meted out for criminal offences.
Only the Civil courts are given such jurisdiction in Malaysia but not the Shariah. All punishments are made under the ta’zir category only.
Section 47 (2) (a) of the Syariah Criminal Offences Act (Federal Territories) 1997 specifically provides for criminal cases with specific penalty in the form of ta’zir (crimes with discretionary punishments).
The Shari’ah Courts in Malaysia hear exclusively personal law and offences and not hudud (crimes with fixed punishments) and qisas (retribution)). This solves the complication often faced by other Muslim countries in their consideration in appointing women judges.
Since the fatwa (legal edict) allowing women to be appointed as Shariah Court judge in Malaysia is made based on the Hanafi school of thought, therefore their jurisdiction would reasonably follow the same school, i.e., they are allowed to hear all cases except hudud and qisas.
Since there are no hudud or qisas cases given under the current legislation, no women and men judges are given jurisdiction to do so.
To conclude, fulfilling women’s expectation is important because they would expect more justice especially in the context of realities that women faced today.
They hope that the presence of women on the bench can make a difference because women possess different experiences, concerns and interests that could bring new perspectives and reduce stereotypes.
However, in dispensing justice, which is an obligation on these judges, these women judges (and men as well) are guided by the Qur’an (5:42) that; “…If you judge, judge between them with justice…” and also Quran 4:105 that “We have revealed to you the scripture with the truth that you may judge between people by what God has taught you.”
Appointment of female judges is a landmark, breaking the last barrier that has been within the legal system to the advancement of women.
Egypt’s Grand Mufti Sheikh Ali Gomaa mentioned that the appointment of women to judicial positions does not contradict Islamic precepts. He said, “The job of a judge is merely to know the law well and to implement it fairly. The inclusion of women is a right owed to society as a whole.”