KUALA LUMPUR: The legal battle over Kelantan syariah law initiated by lawyers Nik Elin Zurina Nik Abdul Rashid and Tengku Yasmin Nastasha Tengku Abdul Rahman was a monumental achievement in upholding Malaysia's rule of law and reinforcing the position of the Federal Court.
Nik Elin and Tengku Yasmin remained resolute in their commitment to uphold the supremacy of the Federal Constitution while facing public and political backlash.
The mother-daughter duo's legal challenge, which resulted in 16 provisions of the Kelantan syariah criminal enactment being ruled out by the apex court, was not without its detractors.
However, they say that their aim was not to attack the syariah system, but to rectify the misinterpretation of law by the state legislative assembly.
This dedication to defend the Federal Constitution against unconstitutional laws highlighted the crucial role of legal professionals in safeguarding the rights and liberties of citizens.
"We did it out of our duty as officers of the law, to defend and protect the supremacy of the Federal Constitution," said Nik Elin in an exclusive interview for the New Straits Times' Beyond the Headlines podcast.
Despite stating that she is a member of Umno, and has stood under the Parti Melayu Semangat 46 (S46) faction, in addition to being affiliated with Muafakat Nasional, Nik Elin said she is "not a politician".
"We are not backed or supported by anyone. It's just the two of us and our lawyers," she added to dispel rumours of political motivations.
Nik Elin claimed that some individuals failed to grasp the motivations behind her petition and that certain individuals had politicised the issue despite its lack of political relevance.
"Now they have even questioned the prime minister when it has nothing to do with him or any particular political party.
"This is just our challenge on behalf of Malaysians."
Last Friday, the Federal Court ruled that 16 out of the 18 provisions under the Kelantan syariah criminal enactment are unconstitutional.
The provisions are Sections 11, 14, 16, 17, 31, 34, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 and 48.
Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, who led the nine-member bench, delivered the judgment.
The only two provisions that remain status quo (constitutional) are selling or giving away a child to non-Muslims or morally reprehensible Muslims (Section 13), and words capable of breaking peace (Section 30).
Tengku Yasmin echoed the statement made by the chief justice that the law being challenged was not determined or ordained by Allah, but by the state legislature implemented by the Syariah Court.
"The very important thing that we need to say is that the (challenged) syariah criminal enactment is takzir (man-made laws). It is not hudud (Islamic penal laws). It is not qisas (retributive justice).
"We are addressing the overlapping issues. If somebody were to be charged under the 16 provisions that were declared unconstitutional, they (still) could have challenged it."
The case of challenging laws in the apex court is not new.
In 2002, former law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim filed an application at the Federal Court for a declaration that Kelantan and Terengganu had no right to enact any criminal law, including hudud.
He said the Kelantan and Terengganu governments seemed to be challenging the federal government when they moved the Syariah Criminal Code (11) Enactment in 1993 and proposed to table the Terengganu State Syariah Criminal (Hudud and Qisas) Bill (in July 2002).
This happened at the height of the push for hudud by Pas, which held power in both Kelantan and Terengganu.
Zaid emerged as one of the few Muslims opposing the syariah penal code and publicly spoke out against Pas. However, he withdrew his court application in 2006.
"So it (legal proceedings against syariah court) has been done before and it is not something abnormal.
"It just so happens that this ruling (16 provisions being unconstitutional) is a landmark decision," said Nik Elin.
Both the syariah-trained lawyers hope for greater uniformity in the country's legal system following the apex court ruling.
Nik Elin said there were existing discrepancies and that there should be greater understanding to enhance transparency, efficiency, and fairness in Malaysia's administration of justice.
She added that the criticisms following the ruling by the Federal Court on the constitutional challenge initiated by her and her daughter have been manipulated by irresponsible parties.
"It's about competency and never about Islam. We are not challenging 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 a different set of laws."