President Alvi and his men challenged
Solemnly sworn as president
is not equal to Oath: Hashmat Habib
The References against Justice Qazi
Faez Isa and High Court judges are filed by a Dentist Doctor Arif Alvi
as a stranger because he had not taken the oath as per Article 255 of constitution.
He had solemnly sworn as president which is not equal to oath.
Hashmat Habib President Tehreek-e-Tahafuzz-e-Adlia pointed
out that framers of the Constitution had intentionally avoided using word Oath
which can be taken only on Holy Book. He said on account of reference against
Qazi Isa the entire lawyers’ community and opposition parties have reacted
seriously to set the things on right path.
The senior lawyer of Supreme Court said; leave the result of
movement and the Govt planning aside, the fact is that right from president, prime
minister, ministers, judges, elected representatives, holder of constitutional
posts and members of armed forces did not take Oath except Solemnly swear. Therefore,
all these persons are strangers to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and entire
system of constitutional post holders are working against the constitution.
Hashmat Habib said this glare illegality should be rectified
and all should take Oath afresh to save Constitution.
It may be mentioned here that a reference
has been filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa under Article 209 of the
Constitution in the Supreme Judicial Council. He
is facing possible legal action over alleged misconduct months after delivering
a landmark ruling that criticized the role of the country’s powerful military
in an anti-government protest in 2017.
In a letter to the president, Supreme Court
Justice Qazi Faez Isa has questioned federal authorities over a court
reference, or legal complaint, that could potentially lead to his removal from
office. The complaint reportedly requests that the Supreme Judicial Council,
comprising five of the most senior Supreme Court and High Court judges, to try
several senior judges for alleged undeclared foreign assets.
Isa particularly raises the question of why the
reference was selectively leaked to the media. “Selective leaks amount to
character assassination, jeopardizing my right to due process and fair trial,”
he wrote in a May 28 letter addressed to President Arif Alvi. “[It] undermines
the institution of the judiciary.”
In a landmark ruling on February 6, Isa- widely
considered a trustworthy judge had directed Pakistani government, spy services,
and the military’s media office to operate within their legal mandate. The
ruling covered a suo motto case regarding a sit-in protest in late 2017.
Islamist group Tehreek-e Labaik Pakistan (TLP) had paralyzed the capital,
Islamabad, and the neighboring city of Rawalpindi for weeks.
“The constitution emphatically prohibits
members of the armed forces from engaging in any kind of political activity,
which includes supporting a political party, faction, or individual,” the ruling
said. “The government of Pakistan through Defense Ministry and respective
chiefs of the army, the navy, and the air force are directed to initiate action
against the personnel under their command who were found to have violated their
oath.”
Military’s role in the protest raised suspicion
at the time. The protest ended with an agreement between the civilian
government and TLP leaders. It was brokered by a senior officer of the
Inter-Services-Intelligence (ISI), the country’s secret service. “The
perception that ISI may be involved in or interfere with matters with which an
intelligence agency should not be concerned with, including politics, therefore
was not put to rest,” Isa said in the verdict.
Pakistani opposition politicians and lawyers
have vehemently opposed the government’s reported complaint against Isa. Additional
Attorney General Zahid Ebrahim resigned from his post on May 29. He argued that
the complaint was an attempt to tarnish Isa’s reputation and intimidate the
judiciary.
Justice Qazi Faez Isa had remained in the news due to his strong
dissent with fellow judges since his elevation in the Supreme Court in
September 2014. Justice Isa wrote dissenting notes in high profile cases
such as the 21st amendment, the houbara bustard and on a matter related to
the chief justice’s discretionary power to entertain public interest
litigation. He also authored the judgment on the dismissal of National
Accountability Bureau (NAB’s) appeal regarding reopening of Hudaibiya Paper
Mills case against Sharif family.
Justice Isa had authored an 11-page dissenting note
against majority judgment. Interestingly, during the tenure of Justice Jamali,
full-court meeting was held to consider names of a few lawyers for giving them
status of senior advocate of Supreme Court. During the meeting, unlike few
senior judges, Justice Isa had strongly opposed to give status to those
lawyers, who had supported ex-military ruler Pervez Musharraf’s November 3,
2007 PCO and emergency. Later, the full court did not give status of senior
advocate to those lawyers. It is learnt that name of incumbent Law Minister Dr
Farogh Naseem was also mentioned in that list.
Justice Qazi Faez Isa also differed with the opinion of SC
senior most Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed in Sheikh Rasheed’s disqualification
case. He raised serious questions over the jurisprudence evolved in view of
Panama Papers verdict regarding the disqualification of lawmakers, calling upon
the apex court to make every effort to dispel any impression that different
persons are treated differently. “Justice must not only be done, but be seen to
be done as well. Every endeavour, therefore, should be made to resolve the
prevailing legal uncertainty. The eligibility of members of parliament should
be decided in accordance with one single and definite measure,” said Justice
Isa in his 27-page dissent note.
He also raised seven questions while recommending that a
full court settle uniform principles for the applicability of Article 62(1)(f)
of the Constitution. Justice Isa believed that the court in the Panama Papers
case clearly applied the strict liability principle, but it did not follow the
strict liability rule in PTI chief Imran Khan’s disqualification case. He said
that there are judgments of this court which apply the “principle or rule of
strict liability” and hold that any nondisclosure or misdeclaration results in
disqualification, giving the Panama Papers cases as examples.
-Nasir Mahmood
Comments
Post a Comment