Rohana binti Yusuf

On the judicial record

A Federal Court judge whose reported corpus settles foundational constitutional questions — including double presumptions under the Dangerous Drugs Act — alongside professional-regulation, banking and land law.

Justice Rohana binti Yusuf sits in the Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan), Malaysia's apex court, and the reported decisions in this corpus resolve constitutional, criminal and commercial questions of the first importance. A landmark constitutional decision concerns the constitutionality of section 37A of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and the use of double presumptions, tested against Articles 5, 8 and 121 of the Federal Constitution and the principle of the separation of powers — the court examining whether stacking statutory presumptions offends the presumption of innocence and the fair-trial guarantee.

Administrative and professional-regulation questions recur, including a challenge to a decision of the Director-General of National Registration on the entry of a father's name in a child's birth register, and the procedure by which a member of the Malaysian Bar may move, under section 64(6) of the Legal Profession Act 1976, for the Bar to lodge a complaint against an advocate and solicitor. Contempt of court is examined through the offence of scandalising contempt arising from material provided for published articles.

Commercial and civil-procedure questions also feature — banking law where a bank honoured a forged cheque presented by a surviving joint-account holder and whether a survivorship clause conferred beneficial ownership, whether a consent judgment may release one party from its mutual obligations without releasing the other, and bankruptcy where a money judgment has multiple petitioning creditors. Land and revenue matters appear through native customary rights over Sarawak forest land and a stamp-duty appeal by the case-stated procedure, and public law through an election petition appeal and appellate-procedure questions on the proper scope of a cross-appeal. The decisions reflect an apex-court judge resolving foundational points across the constitutional, criminal and commercial fields for the guidance of the courts below, where the ruling fixes the governing rule for the legal system rather than merely disposing of the parties' immediate dispute, and where constitutional text and structure carry decisive weight.