In a recent landmark case, JRI Resources Sdn. Bhd. v Kuwait Finance House (Malaysia) Berhad, the Federal Court, the apex court in the judicial system of Malaysia, decided that the ascertainment of Islamic law by the Shariah Advisory Council of Bank Negara Malaysia (SAC) is binding on the judiciary and is not tantamount to a judicial decision. Of the nine panel judges, four judges dissented, arguing against the legality and constitutionality of the SAC. The dissenting judges argued that the SAC has been vested with judicial power by section 57 of the Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009; hence, this section is unconstitutional and invalid and needs to be struck down. This brief write-up will shed some light on key issues underlying this historic judgment. Before that, let us take a quick look at the impetus that spurred the establishment of the SAC.
Readership Map
Content Distribution
In a recent landmark case, JRI Resources Sdn. Bhd. v Kuwait Finance House (Malaysia) Berhad, the Federal Court, the apex court in the judicial system of Malaysia, decided that the ascertainment of Islamic law by the Shariah Advisory Council of Bank Negara Malaysia (SAC) is binding on the judiciary and is not tantamount to a judicial decision. Of the nine panel judges, four judges dissented, arguing against the legality and constitutionality of the SAC. The dissenting judges argued that the SAC has been vested with judicial power by section 57 of the Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009; hence, this section is unconstitutional and invalid and needs to be struck down. This brief write-up will shed some light on key issues underlying this historic judgment. Before that, let us take a quick look at the impetus that spurred the establishment of the SAC.
If you are an existing member, Log in to read the full text
New to IKR? Sign up as our member
