In addition, he said the highest court’s ruling has also drawn questions over the implications on harmonisation of the civil and shariah courts.

“This decision has raised more confusion in terms of defining criminal law and shariah law,” Mohamad said in a statement.

Mohamad, who is often referred to as Tok Mat, asked if this decision meant that such acts could be carried out freely now that the state legislative assembly had no powers to enact laws against unnatural sex offences.

“Does this now mean that state governments need to review their shariah enactments to ensure the offences under them do not infringe parliamentary powers in amending and making laws?”

He said there were major issues that needed to be looked at by state governments because the decision will have implications on shariah laws, and the status of state enactments as well as federal laws.

“The laws need to be fine-tuned as the decision will affect the fate of shariah criminal laws.

“The shariah laws enacted by state assemblies are not only limited to the precepts of Islam, but sometimes they are interrelated and cross certain boundaries (into the civil courts system).”

Earlier this week, the court ruled in favour of a 35-year-old-man in his constitutional challenge against Section 28 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment.

Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, who chaired a nine-member bench, said the primary power to enact criminal laws lies with Parliament.

The man claimed trial to one charge before the Shah Alam Shariah High Court for “attempting to commit sexual intercourse against the order of nature” with other men.

The court ruled that states can enact laws on offences against the precepts of Islam for Muslims, but not when these are already on the Federal List.

It held that if such an offence falls within any of the matters in the Federal List, including criminal law, then the states cannot legislate the enactment.