The Constitutional court chief justice responded to criticism of the court’s recent ruling to uphold the controversial Blasphemy Law by dismissing plaintiffs’ censure as “the way of the losers”.
With only one dissenting opinion, the court on Monday ruled to turn down a request filed by human rights groups and high-profile individuals.
The petitioners argued that the law discriminated against religious minorities. The court, however, said the law was necessary to maintain public order. Plaintiffs slammed the decision, saying it was influenced by a fear of the majority.
Chief justice Mahfud MD said Wednesday in an email that such accusations against justices were frequently voiced by those whose requests were turned down by the court.
“Everyone who has lost a case at the court always says that the judges are not independent and influenced by external factors. It’s the way of the losers,” he wrote. He was in Turkey to attend the anniversary of Turkey’s Constitutional court.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs, M. Choirul Anam, said Thursday that he objected to Mahfud’s statement.
“One of the requirements to become a [justice] is that one has to be open to criticism,” he added.
The request to review the law was publicly opposed by the religious affairs minister and several Islamic organizations, including hard-liners who warned of possible violence if the 45-year-old law was scrapped.
Twelve hearings were held with more than 40 experts sharing their views on the law. Of the experts, plaintiffs brought in seven, the government presented 16, the court brought in 17 and the rest came from related parties. Most of the court’s experts called the law problematic and requested revisions be made.
In his email, Mahfud said most of the experts recommended no changes to the law.
“Only a few asked for the law to be repealed, most said keep it, some requested revisions. Revisions to a law, however, are not the court’s responsibility, but the legislature’s. The court only rules on whether a law is constitutional,” he added.
Plaintiffs have requested legislators examine the ruling, a move Mahfud said he was willing to
accommodate.
“I will be happy if our ruling was examined by the House of Representatives,” he said. “Let NGOs, academics and, more importantly, the Judicial Commission also look into it. If they like, the plaintiffs can even go to the UN Human Rights Commission,” he said.
| 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|