Make The MMDA Report Public: A Response To Hilmy Ahamed

By Ibn – Al – Rushd –February 1, 2018

An article published under the title “The Long awaited MMDA Report, A Façade” by Hilmy Ahamed has been doing the rounds. Based on either conjecture or hearsay, the article on the face of it seems to serve a single purpose- derailing the efforts made through the years to navigate an issue which has given rise to serious difficulties to those who have to seek relief from the Quazi Courts and its appellate bodies, particularly Muslim women.

This is despite the fact that the civilised world has agreed to certain standards which ought to be maintained with regard to marriage, children and equality. The civilised world which was one time spearheaded by the Muslims themselves, granting equality, abhorring medieval practices and advancing both in art and science. It is the irony that in 2018, we are yet in the process of reading and listening to the likes of the content of the said article and more, insisting that we must acceded to narratives built and acted upon by a society far different from what we have now.

The current response serves to do two things. First, it responds to the said article written by Hilmy Ahamed and published in the Colombo Telegraph on 28 Jan 2018 [1], and thereafter in the Financial Times on 30 Jan 2018 [2]. Secondly, it raises a plea from the Sri Lankan public to the Minister of Justice to immediately publish the report recommending amendments to the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (the MMDA Report), that was handed over to the Minister of Justice, Mrs. Thalatha Atukorale, on 22 Jan 2018 by Justice Saleem Marsoof, acting as the chairperson of the committee appointed by the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Milinda Moragoda in 2009 (the MMDA Committee). Notably, the MMDA Report comprises two separate reports, one signed by the chairperson and 8 others on 20 Dec 2017 and another signed by As-Sheikh Rizwe Mufti and 8 others on 21 Dec 2017.

As will be demonstrated herein, the need to publicize the MMDA Report is necessitated by irresponsible conjecture on the part of  the writer-Hilmy Ahamed. In order to comprehensively respond to the alleged, and rather spurious, claims madein the article, the claims are set out below followed by a response to each of these claims.

 

Claim 1: that no consensus was reached

The article claims that “[i]t is regrettable that the JSM [Justice Saleem Marsoof] committee could not arrive at a consensus among the learned members who sat for a record nine long years” [1][2]. This claim, however, is only a half truth and is aimed at projecting a wrong impression. He also claims “[t]he Chair miserably failed to negotiate a consensus.”

As was published by Colombo Telegraph [3] and Ceylon Today [4] on 24 Jan 2018, the MMDA Report was unanimous on all fronts except on three aspects of the current law–namely, the prohibition on the appointment of women Quazis, the prohibition on Attorneys-at-Law appearing in Quazi Courts and the reference to ‘sect’ in ss16 and 98(2) of the MMDA. On the aforesaid issues, the MMDA Committee was equally split. In addition, the Colombo Telegraph reported in the same article that although the MMDA Committee did reach consensus on setting a minimum age of marriage, there was a 9:9 split in respect of its scope and exceptions:

“…while one group including the Chairman want to set it at 18 for both males and females, while allowing for the Quazi Court  to authorize marriages of a male or female above 16 in the best interest of the particular person where a case can be made that relevant circumstances are exceptional. Another group led by Ash-Sheikh M.I.M Rizwe Mufti on the other hand has recommended that males be above 18 and females above 16 with power to the Quazi to authorize a marriage of any girl below the age of 16 in the interest of such girl” [3].

Thus, it is common knowledge that the MMDA Committee was equally split (9:9) on the aforesaid issues in which the Committee did not concur, whereas there was unanimity and consensus between the members in respect of all other matters. As such, it is quite clear that all references in the said article that no consensus was reached by members of the MMDA group, as well as the writer’s reference to a ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ within the MMDA Committee are misconceived, false and incorrect.

 

Read More