Keputusan kes Nik Elin bukan lemahkan Mahkamah Syariah, kata Tengku Maimun

Bekas ketua hakim negara Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat has emphasized that the recent decision made in a case involving lawyer Nik Elin Zurina Nik Abdul Rashid does not undermine the sanctity of Islam or weaken the standing of the Syariah Court. In fact, the judgment was based on the principle of challenging corruption, where the State Assembly of Kelantan was found to overstep its jurisdiction by enacting criminal procedural laws that are exclusively within the purview of Parliament under the Constitution.

Tengku Maimun clarified that the court's role is to act as the referee correcting the balance of power, as allowing power abuse would mean condoning federalism breach and legislation anarchy, which could undermine the very foundation of the nation. Delivered at a seminar in Bangi, he spoke at a press conference, recalling the landmark 2024 decision of the Federal Court that invalidated and declared the 16 Sharia crimes in the 2019 Kelantan Criminal Procedure Code (I) invalid and null.

The judgment was presented by Nik Elin Zurina and her son Tengku Yasmin Nastasha Tengku Abdul Rahman, who were supported by a nine-member panel of judges with a majority of 8-1 after the court ruled out two additional flaws in the code that were listed in the petition. The decision sparked various reactions, including allegations of the Federal Court's decision being politically motivated.

Tengku Maimun insisted that the petition was granted because the state government made laws that it has no power to enact, and there's no conflict with Islam or the Syariah Court. He also mentioned that upholding integrity in any institution, be it the judiciary or elsewhere, comes at a high personal cost and requires strong moral courage.

Tengku Maimun firmly stated that a truly independent individual must stand firm and not bow down to external pressure, especially if it threatens the truth for the sake of social media popularity or pressure from higher authorities. To strengthen the institution, he highlighted the necessity of clear monitoring, merit-based appointments, careful legislation, and strict enforcement without favoritism.

He also emphasized that trust is built through daily evidence, not empty slogans. Finally, he stressed the importance of leadership by example and warned against the dangers of favoritism within any organization, as it could lead to the abuse of power by individuals who protect wrongdoers or ignore external opinions.