Kota Kinabalu: The High Court here allowed an application by an illiterate father and his three children from Pitas, Kota Marudu, to amend their National Registration Identity Cards (NRICs) to reflect their religion as Christian.
Judge Datuk Celestina Stuel Galid in her decision on Wednesday said the plaintiffs had successfully proven that they were not and were never Muslims and that the indication of “Islam” on their MyKads was wrongly inserted.
Advertisement
“This is not a case where the plaintiffs had converted to Islam at any point of their lives and are now applying to renounce the religion,” she stressed.
The plaintiffs Abdul Manap bin Bakusai @ Abu Bakar and three others named the Director of the National Registration Department (JPN) Sabah in the action.
The plaintiffs had applied by way of an Originating Summons to amend their NRIC particulars with the Director of the National Registration Department (NRD), Sabah, after discovering that the word “Islam” appeared on their MyKads issued in 2001.
The court noted that the family had at all times practised Christianity and had never converted to Islam. Supporting documents, including baptism certificates, church letters, grandparents’ NRICs and burial records showing interment in Christian cemeteries were exhibited.
The plaintiffs said they only became aware of the error after receiving their MyKads, as earlier generations of NRICs did not indicate religion.
Attempts to rectify the matter with the NRD were unsuccessful, prompting the present application.
The NRD opposed the application, contending that the first plaintiff had stated “Islam” as the religion for himself and the second and third plaintiffs in the MyKad application forms, which he had thumb-printed.
Federal Counsel submitted that under Section 2(1)(f) of the Majlis Ugama Islam Negeri Sabah Enactment 2004, the plaintiffs were bound by the declaration made, and that any remedy lay with the Syariah Court.
In addressing the jurisdictional objection, Celestina said the unchallenged evidence showed that the plaintiffs had never practised Islam.
“They were baptised as Christians very early on in their respective lives, they have been and continued to be parishioners of the Protestant Church in Sabah, they are married to Christian spouses and raised their respective children as Christians,” she said.
She noted that there was an absence of evidence of them being Muslims, save for what was stated on their MyKads.
Citing the Federal Court decision in Rosliza Ibrahim v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor [2021] 3 CLJ 301, she said: “It is my holding that this court has jurisdiction to hear this application.”
Celestina further cited the Court of Appeal ruling in Ketua Pegawai Penguatkuasa Agama & Ors v Maqsood Ahmad & Ors [2020] 10 CLJ 748, holding that a MyKad is not conclusive evidence of religious identity and subject to challenge.
On the evidence, she observed that the first plaintiff was illiterate and had sought assistance from NRD officers to complete the application forms.
“With respect, if any clear and specific evidence is to be had, the defendant is in a better position than the plaintiffs to provide such evidence,” she said, noting that the NRD failed to obtain express denials from the officers involved.
She found it most significant that the NRD did not specifically address the plaintiffs’ averment that “Islam” was marked without informing or consulting them beforehand.
“The silence by the NRD on this matter, in my view, speaks volumes,” she said.
Celestina also referred to earlier cases where similar errors had occurred, including Satiah Simbunar v Director of National Registration Department, Sabah [2022] CLJU 2411 and Zulkifli Adirin v Director of National Registration Department, Sabah [2021] MLRHU 2540.
In the present case, she noted that the fourth plaintiff’s application form stated her religion as “Kristian”, yet her MyKad still bore the word “Islam”, with no explanation offered by the defendant.
She rejected Federal Counsel’s submission that the fourth plaintiff’s religion followed that of the first plaintiff, describing it as having no factual basis.
“This perceived notion that it is within the purview of the NRD to make such unilateral determination is fundamentally wrong and ought to be corrected,” she said.
Celestina added that such actions not only went against the will of illiterate applicants who depended on NRD officers for assistance, but also denied them their constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion under Article 11 of the Federal Constitution.
“In my view, the plaintiffs have discharged their burden on a balance of probabilities that they are not and were never Muslims, that the first plaintiff is illiterate and that the information in the application forms denoting their religion as Islam had been wrongly inserted by the defendant’s officers who had filled in the application form.
The burden therefore shifts to the defendant to rebut their assertions but which I find the defendant failed to do so.
“In the circumstances, I allow the plaintiffs’ application with no order as to costs,” she said.
Counsel Adam Chin and Hassan Murtaza represented the plaintiffs while Federal Counsels Zulkiefli Sulaiman and Mohammad Solehheen Mohammad Zaki appeared for the defendant.
