PUTRAJAYA (March 22): Exactly four months ago, the Federal Court halted the delivery of its prepared judgment — the first time in the history of the apex court this was done — in the highly charged public interest case, the "bin Abdullah" case.

However, till today there has not been much progress of a settlement in the matter between the government — specifically the National Registration Department (NRD) — and the parents of the boy from Johor who will turn nine this year.

The bin Abdullah case involves a child conceived out of wedlock but the child's father agreed to marry the mother before the child was born. After the child, a boy, was born, the NRD registered him with the patronym "bin Abdullah". But the parents want him to bear the father's name and filed a judicial review to compel the NRD to make the name change.

The parents won the right to get him renamed in a landmark decision at the Court of Appeal in 2017, where the three-member bench ruled that a national fatwa on the issue is not law binding and that the NRD was only confined to determining whether the father had fulfilled the requirements under Section 13A(2) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957.

With the appellate court's judgment, the NRD was ordered to change the child's patronym from "bin Abdullah" to that of the father's name.

The fatwa referred here is the 2003 National Fatwa Council edict, which states that a child conceived out of wedlock (anak tak sah taraf) or one of indeterminate paternity (tidak boleh dinasabkan) cannot carry the name of the person who claims to be the father if the child was born less than six months into a marriage.

The apex decision, had it been delivered last Nov 22, would not only have affected the boy, but would also be binding on other Muslim children in a similar predicament.

The names of the parents and boy have been withheld from the public following a court ruling to protect their identities.

The case came up for case management yesterday before Federal Court deputy registrar Norhafizah Zainal Abidin, where it is understood that the lawyer for the Johor Islamic Council (MAIJ) Iqbal Salam, along with the Selangor Islamic Council's (MAIS) Halimatun Saadiah, wants the Nov 22 judgment that has been prepared to be read.

MAIJ is an intervener in the case while MAIS is an amicus curae (friend of the court). They were not the original parties when the case was first heard in the High Court.

Senior federal counsel Mazlifah Ayob, who appeared for the NRD, the department's director-general, and the government, informed the court yesterday that certain parties are still negotiating the matter.

"There is no definitive conclusion of a settlement. Parties are still negotiating and it will take some time. There has been positive discussions and proposal of solution," she said.

Following this, Norhafizah said she will inform the chairman (Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Ahmad Ma'arop) for a decision.

"If the chairman says to deliver [the apex court's decision], it will do so. If not, on May 27, there will be the hearing (re-hearing)," the deputy registrar said.

The family's counsel Nizam Bashir told theedgemarkets.com that they would raise an objection whether the judgment is to be delivered on May 27 or the NRD's appeal is reheard, as there was now insufficient quorum to rule on the matter either way following the retirement of one of the three judges.

The three-member bench comprised Justice Ahmad and Federal Court judges Justice Datuk Balia Yusof Wahi and Justice Tan Sri Aziah Ali. Aziah has retired following the deferment of the apex court's decision on Nov 22.

The trio were part of the original five-member bench led by then Chief Justice Tun Md Raus Sharif who first heard the NRD's appeal against the appellate court's judgment before the 14th general election last year. The other member of the bench at the time was Federal Court judge Tan Sri Hasan Lah. The quintet was trimmed when Md Raus resigned and Hasan retired.

Then in October 2018, a seven-member bench was set up and led by chief Justice Tan Sri Richard Malanjum to re-hear the case, but Richard called it off after being told that three judges from the previous panel (Ahmad, Balia and Aziah) were still present and could deliver the decision.

Nevertheless, on Nov 22, the bench deferred its verdict after the government asked for an adjournment.

In asking for the adjournment, senior federal counsel Datuk Amarjeet Singh had informed the apex court that executive branch of the government wanted to address the matter carefully and consult a wide range of stakeholders.

The government is of the view that the delicate nature of the subject matter has far-reaching implications and required solutions by other means, Amarjeet had said. "Other means", he had reiterated, was not through the courts, but either through executive or legislative means and that efforts to achieve a solution will begin.