NRD can appeal in Muslim child’s surname case

Chief Justice: Apex court to resolve the matter

PUTRAJAYA: The ruling on whether a Muslim child conceived out of wedlock must use the surname Abdullah instead of their father’s name will be heard at the Federal Court.

This is part of the ongoing legal battle of a couple and their son, who filed a judicial review to compel the National Registration Department (NRD) director-general to amend the child’s birth certificate, to replace the surname Abdullah with the name of the father.

The Federal Court yesterday gave NRD the nod to appeal against the Court of Appeal decision in favour of the judicial review.

Chief Justice Md Raus Sharif, who led the panel of three including Court of Appeal president Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Justice Aziah Ali, allowed three of the four questions put forward by the Government’s lawyers.

The NRD, represented by Senior Federal Counsel Suzana Atan, requested the court to determine three legal questions.

First, whether in registering Muslim children, the registrar of birth and death may refer and rely on sources of Islamic Law on legitimacy.

Second, whether the civil court may determine questions on legitimacy of Muslim children in respect of naming and ascription of paternity.

Third, whether Section 13A of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 (BDRA) applies to registration of birth for Muslim children; enabling the children to take their father’s surname.

Lawyer K. Shanmuga, who represented the couple and their son, objected to leave being granted, saying the third point which formed the crux of the argument had essentially been settled by the Court of Appeal.

Justice Md Raus said the Apex court would resolve the matter.

“We are simply going on the question of whether the NRD director-general was irrational in registering the child as Abdullah,” he said.

Also attending the hearing was lawyer Datuk Sulaiman Abdullah, who represented intervenors Johor Islamic Religious Council.

The Court of Appeal, in a written judgment released on July 25, said the NRD director-general was not bound by the ‘fatwa’ or religious edict issued by the National Fatwa Committee to decide the surname of a Muslim child conceived out of wedlock.

In the judgment, the court said the director-general’s jurisdiction was a civil one and was confined to determining whether the child’s parents had fulfilled the requirements under the BDRA, which covers all illegitimate children, Muslim and non-Muslim.

The court had held that a fatwa had no force of law and could not form the legal basis for the NRD director-general to decide on the surname of an illegitimate child under Section 13A (2) of the BDRA.