Sisters in Islam (SIS), Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) and Komuniti Muslim Universal (KMU Malaysia) raise serious concerns about the arrest of Siti Nuramira Abdullah following her act at the Crackhouse Comedy Club in Taman Tun Dr Ismail by enforcement officers from the Federal Territory Islamic Religious Department (Jawi) who waited for her at the Kuala Lumpur Courts Complex in Jalan Duta.
The arrest felt more like a witch hunt given that the arrest happened as soon as she was released on bail for her charge under Section 298A of the Penal Code.
There is a risk of double jeopardy should Jawi proceed with charging Siti Nuramira under Section 7 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Enactment.
It is SIS’ position that Section 7 Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Enactment is similar in essence as Section 298A of the Penal Code as both laws are considered blasphemy laws and prohibit any criticism of religion. Although Section 7 only covers the religion of Islam, but it still covers religion as per Section 298A.
In Jumali Adnan v PP (1986), the court had stated that any charges made against the accused must be distinct and different. The ingredient of the offence must not be the same.
It was pointed out by a Free Malaysia Today (FMT) reader that a person may be charged for corruption under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 and for money laundering under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 which reiterates our stance and proves that the two charges were different as it was mentioned that one was for corruption and the other for money laundering.
Spencer Wilkins J in PP v Viran stated that “where the law provides, either in the same or different enactments, for different penalties for the same offence that both or all of the provisions as to punishments are intended to stand side by side and that it is left to the proper authorities to decide under which of the different provisions the offender shall be prosecuted and punished”.
Hence, there should not be a duplicity of charges brought against a person. An argument has been made of the usage in Mohd Yusoff Samadi v AG, where in this case, there was no double jeopardy because the forum of his two trials are different in nature, one was in the criminal court for criminal charges, and the other in an employment tribunal, a civil matter for dismissal for bringing disrepute to the reputation of the company.
It differs from Siti Nuramira’s because both her charges are of criminal nature and she is being tried for a criminal offence under both laws. We would also like to point out that the charges under the Syariah Criminal Offences Enactment and under the Penal Code are taken by the same Federal Government as both Jawi and the AG’s Chambers are under the purview of the Federal Government. This begs the question of coordination between the two federal run departments.
We further reiterate that this is a waste of taxpayers money, as both agencies are run by the Federal Government which has the authority to collect taxes from all taxpayers around the nation and be channelled to these two agencies. The show of force by Jawi is also excessive, having eight enforcement officers to arrest a non-violent person for a non-violent crime.
Some of our politicians whose crimes affect the nation as a whole but did not receive such attention and were not arrested by eight officers. Jawi should channel this manpower towards other areas that require more urgent attention, affecting communities in difficult and dire financial and non-financial circumstances, particularly the enforcement of nafkah (maintenance) payment to children.
Sisters in Islam
Suara Rakyat Malaysia
Komuniti Muslim Universal
