KUALA LUMPUR: Lawyer Nik Elin Zurina Nik Abdul Rashid hopes for greater uniformity in the country's legal system following the apex court ruling on Friday involving the Kelantan syariah criminal aenactment
Nik Elin stressed that there was no other motivation behind the constitutional challenge which she initiated with her daughter Tengku Yasmin Nastasha Tengku Abdul Rahman.
She nevertheless insisted that there was a need to harmonise the various legal systems currently in place across the country.
"It is about equity and justice," said the mother-daughter duo during an exclusive interview on the New Straits Times' Beyond the Headlines podcast.
Nik Elin said there are existing discrepancies and that there should be greater understanding to enhance transparency, efficiency, and fairness in Malaysia's administration of justice.
She added the criticisms following the ruling by the Federal Court on the constitutional challenge initiated by her and her daughter "has been twisted and manipulated from a competency challenge to Islam."
"It was never about Islam."
Pointing to the syariah courts, Nik Elin said: "Syariah courts are good but have a uniform code for the whole of Malaysia."
"Right now we don't have uniformity where each state has different sets of laws."
Earlier the syariah trained lawyers said the state legislative assembly is to be blamed for misleading the rule of law.
Nik Elin and her daughter said that they are not attacking the syariah system as many have pointed out and echoed the statement made by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat that the law being challenged was not determined or ordained by Allah.
She also said that she has received several death threats over her constitutional challenge and has filed three police reports regarding these threats.
It was reported that the Federal Court in Putrajaya near here on Friday ruled that 16 out of the 18 provisions under the Kelantan syariah criminal enactment, are constitutional.
The provisions are Sections 11, 14, 16, 17, 31, 34, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 and 48. The ruling was made by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, who led the nine-member bench.
Tengku Maimun, who delivered the majority judgment ruling, ruled that the essence of these provisions were matters under the federal list, which only the Parliament has the power to make.
Watch more of this interview on the full episode of Beyond the Headlines released today (Feb 11) on NST's YouTube channel, NST Online.