CJ confrontational on 18th Amendment?

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

woh woh calm down man, do you also include in this list NS and SS?:slight_smile:

yeh tumhara ideal cj koi aasman se utra hwo frishta nahin hay. Don’t think that this CJ is clean and honest. Read follows and then read your above comments. parhta jaa aor sharmata jaa hain jee

http://teeth.com.pk/blog/2007/02/26/letter-to-cj-from-naeem-bokhari

I would like to share a very interesting letter I just received on email, written by Supreme Court Advocate Naeem Bohkari addressed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. It is a definite ‘must read’ for all Pakistanis

Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
Chief Justice
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Islamabad
Pakistan

My Lord:

I write this letter as an Officer of the Supreme Court of Pakistan; as an Advocate enrolled in the apex Court since 1984 and in the High Courts since 1972; as an Attorney who has paid more income tax from his earnings in the legal profession than many of my friends, colleagues and seniors elevated to the Bench; and as a stake-holder in the dispensation of justice, intimately and vitally interested in the functioning of the Supreme Court.

Many judges who adorn the Bench in the Supreme Court and the High Court know me over decades, as a person endowed by nature with a pleasant disposition and acceptance of human failings. Towards the courts, my approach has always been of consistent and continuous display of respect and humility. I bow out of conviction, not compulsion. I use the words “My Lords”, because I want to, not because I have to. As an Attorney, I look up to the Court and want to see it on a high pedestal of dignity, compassion and justice, tempered with mercy.
I have seen my Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Hamood-ur-Rahman, Chief Justice Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Chief Justice S. Anwar-ul-Haq, Chief Justice Mohammad Haleem and how the Court functioned under them in the 1970s/1980s.
I witnessed the proceedings for the ouster of Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, became aware that the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, had ‘worked’ on some judges of the Supreme Court and saw the physical assault on the Court.

I was appalled at the manner in which Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan led the Supreme Court and pained at the insinuations against Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, when he was the Chief Justice.
I was horrified by the establishment of a Bench of five judges constituted by Chief Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui to determine whether reduction in the retirement age for judges was constitutional or not. This was clearly designed to block your appointment. I was against the idea of Mr. Amirul Mulk Mengal being made the Chief Justice before you. Within the limits of my influence (which I readily admit to be very limited), I was totally for you to become the Chief Justice. Justice Javed Buttar is aware of my position, as is the Attorney General of Pakistan. The accelerated issue of the notification appointing you the Chief Justice put Justice Siddiqui’s move to rest.
I believed that you were vigorous, capable of lifting up the Supreme Court, creating an espirit-de-corps among your brother judges, restoring the dignity and grandeur of the apex Court, particularly considering the long tenure before you.
Alas this has not come about.

I am not perturbed by your insistence on protocol (despite my belief that the Chief Justice would rise in the eyes of everybody if he walked from his residence to the Supreme Court and hooters, police escort, flags is just fluff, not the substance of an office).
I am mildly amused at your desire to be presented a guard of honour in Peshawar. I am titillated by the appropriation of aMercedes-Benz car or is it cars, the use of the Government of the Punjab’s airplane to offer Fateha in Multan, to Sheikhupura for Fateha on a Government of the Punjab helicopter, to Hyderabad on a Government of the Sind’s plane for attending a High Court function, the huge amount spent in refurbishing the chamber and residence of the Chief Justice, the reservation for yourself of a wing in Supreme Court Judges guest house in Lahore, the permanent occupation by the Supreme Court of the official residence of the Chief Justice of Sind, who per force lives in the basement of his father’s house. As his class fellow in the Government College, Lahore, I can vouch that living in the basement will do him no harm.

I am not perturbed that Dr. Arsalaan (your son) secured 16/100 in the English paper for the Civil Services Examination, that there is a case against him in some court in Baluchistan, that from the Health Department in Baluchistan he has shifted to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), that he has obtained training in the Police Academy, that he reportedly drives a BMW 7-Series car, that there is a complaint against him with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
My grievances and protests are different.

I am perturbed that the Supreme Court should issue a clarificatory statement on his behalf. I am perturbed that Justice (Retd.) Wajihuddin Ahmed should be constrained to advise you on television that “people who live in glass houses should not throw stones at others”. I am perturbed that the Chief Justice should summon Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman to his chambers on Dr. Arsalaan’s account.
I am appalled that you announce decisions in Court, while in the written judgment an opposite conclusion is recorded.
In the Petition for leave to appeal filed by Dr. Sher Afghan Niazi, Federal Minister for Parliamentary Affairs (in which Respondent’s Counsels were Mr. Khalid Anwar and Mr. Qadir Saeed), you refused to grant leave in open Court and yet in the written order, leave was granted to Dr. Sher Afghan Niazi.
On 15-2-2007, Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim complained that in open Court you had accepted his appeal but dismissed the same in the judgement, subsequently recorded.

If Mr. Khalid Anwar, a former Minister of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, and Mr Fakrhuddin, Senior Counsel, are treated in this manner, the fate of lesser known lawyers would certainly be far worse.
My grievances also concern the manner in which the last and highest court of appeal is dispensing justice, under your leadership.
My Lord, the dignity of lawyers is consistently being violated by you. We are treated harshly, rudely, brusquely and nastily. We are not heard. We are not allowed to present our case. There is little scope for advocacy. The words used in the Bar Room for Court No. 1 are “the slaughter house”. We are cowed down by aggression from the Bench, led by you. All we receive from you is arrogance, aggression and belligerence. You also throw away the file, while contemptuously announcing: “This is dismissed”.

Yet this aggression is not for everyone. When Mr. Sharifuddin Pirzada appears, your Lordship’s demeanour and appearance is not just sugar and honey. You are obsequious to the point of meekness. So apart from violating our dignity, which the Constitution commands to be inviolable, we suffer discrimination in your Court.
I am not raising the issue of verbal onslaughts and threats to Police Officers and other Civil Servants, who have the misfortune to be summoned, degraded and reminded that “This is the Supreme Court”.
The way in which My Lord conducts proceedings is not conducive to the process of justice. In fact, it obstructs due process and constitutes contempt of the Supreme Court itself.

I am pained at the wide publicity to cases taken up by My Lord in the Supreme Court under the banner of Fundamental Rights. The proceedings before the Supreme Court can conveniently and easily be referred to the District and Sessions Judges. I am further pained by the media coverage of the Supreme Court on the recovery of a female. In the bar room, this is referred to as a “Media Circus”.
My Lord, this communication may anger you and you are in any case prone to get angry in a flash, but do reflect upon it. Perhaps you are not cognizant of what your brother judges feel and say about you.
My Lord, before a rebellion arises among your brother judges (as in the case of Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah), before the Bar stands up collectively and before the entire matter is placed before the Supreme Judicial Council, there may be time to change and make amends.

I hope you have the wisdom and courage to make these amends and restore serenity, calm, compassion, patience and justice tempered with mercy to my Supreme Court.

My Lord, we all live in the womb of time and are judged, both by the present and by history. The judgement about you, being rendered in the present, is adverse in the extreme.

Yours faithfully,
NAEEM BOKHARI
Advocate
Supreme Court of
Pakistan
Islamabad, Pakistan

22

By DAWN? I guess you have never read Jang/News and Takbeer, for example.

Question is not about any law being Islamic or un-Islamic. Nor is the question about any changes in basic human rights laws. I think basic point of the debate is that whether parliament can change the requirement of CJ’s consent to appoint supreme court judges.
And as I said earlier, there are many examples in the world where CJ’s consent in not required at all.

In Pakistan, the constitution calls for appointment of judges by President with “after consultation with CJ”. But CJ’s have interpreted it as saying that their recommendation is binding on President. Now 18th Amendment clarifies the procedure. There is nothing “unconstitutional” in this law. CJ needs to understand that he is not the king of Pakistan. It is parliament that is supreme. No more can one person (CJ) appoint judges of his own liking, and continue to threaten government and parliament.

Following explains the situation better. It shows why CJ is furious (“unconstitutionally”):

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/03-petition-filed-against-the-18th-amendment-ss-08
ISLAMABAD: Only a day after Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry reminded the parliament of what he had said about the limits to legislative authority, a petition was filed on Saturday against the 18th Amendment, which proposed judicial appointments through a judicial commission.

Both houses of the Parliament had the 18th Amendment, which has reduced the role of the Chief Justice in judicial appointments. The bill is about to be signed by the President Asif Ali Zardari.

However, on Thursday the Chief Justice used the national judicial conference to speak his mind against the constitutional amendment bill saying the legislature had to make laws within the parameters set out by the constitution.

The new article says “the recommendations for appointment of judges to superior judiciary shall be formulated through a judicial commission” and “the chairman shall be a Chief Justice,who has never previously taken oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO)”.

23

Re: CJ confrontational on 18th Amendment?

These people look so stupid. Idiots.

24

You have to differentiate between the constitutional amendment and the regular bill passed by the parliament. Those are totally different things.

Btw, the US Constitution have been amended 27th times over last 240 years, and not once it has ever been over ruled by the the US SC. That is why requirement to amend the constitution is lot tough than just passing laws.

25

The concept of democracy is based on the idea that destiny of a nation ultimately lies in hand of its people. Those sharabi khabi MNAS & senators represent collective will and wisdom of the nation, and they have right to call armed forces chiefs in front of parliamentary committees and question them. What is wrong with that?

26

You aren't very smart on the uptake are you? Reread the article it refers to clauses that state that the Parliament is the supreme body for constitutional amendments. Legally incorrect. The supreme court is the legal body which has the final say on any constitutional amendments.

It is not referring to local laws. But actual amendments to the constitution and that is where the example of the 1st amendment comes into place.

Next time you mouth off read the article will ya?

27

If it is about appointment of judges, I agree with you that the parliament has right to add/amend/edit constitution regarding this.

From what I understand, the CJ was referring to the amendment that would take away Supreme Courts powers to analyse the amendments in the constitution and see if they conflict with other articles or basic human rights. This is sensible in a sense that parliamentarians are not expert in law and courts should have some right in determining if a particular law conflicts with other parts of constitution.

28

Re: CJ confrontational on 18th Amendment?

Sir just a recent parliamentary committee ruling, when they pronounced that there is no corruption in the LNG contract, and when come to SC hearing everyone equally told the court of stinking fish.

Are you sure these parliamentarian are good and honest enough to decided destiny of 170 million peoples, when they could not see problem with the contract of more 1 billion dollars higher more then lowest bid???

I do agree the CJ or courts might crossed the lines somewhere, but who is in the line today??

If not for this CJ they would have sold Pakistan steels mills at peanut price. Do not forget you president is convicted by swiss courts, and now his position is even more weaker as he already claimed all monies frozen in Swiss and UK courts (which he denied ownership at first place).

29

Re: CJ confrontational on 18th Amendment?

^ We elected those guys, tipusultn. :)

30

Yes but they are suppose to work within law and good faith.

If someone is taking advantage of weak law but he still could be prosecuted for acting with bad faith.

31

You have the power to vote them out. Or would you rather have a general sitting there calling the shots who will not be accountable to anyone including the courts? The facts is, our country has been ruled by corrupt generals longer that politicians, but we never hear this kind of criticism for kaki walas. Why? And their crimes are lot worse than any politicians crime.

32

Please you must remember in civil society no criminal allow to contest election no matter how popular he is.

Only in our beloved Pakistan corrupts talks about "peoples courts" rather to court of law.

If you feels that Pakistani courts r not impartial then why is he fears independent British or swiss courts?

Why can't he just contest a case in those courts and prove his innocence?

How someone who producing medical certificates claiming mental incapacity to stand trial suddenly after NRO Jab become so healthy to fit lead the country?

33

Re: CJ confrontational on 18th Amendment?

We were once hold for ransom does by corrupt general does not mean we allow same to do with "civil" Generals.

Yes we were powerless to resist those Generals but these "Civilian Generals" are within our power. In any case enough is enough.

Now since rightly courts, media has created a so called balance of power which was never existed in Pakistan (although all has cross the line at times).

But at least they are feeling pressure, hopefully it would help to purge the system.

34

Well said :k:

35

Re: CJ confrontational on 18th Amendment?

If you want to pick n choose and discuss some deeds of Iffti and ignore other not-so-legal deeds, u r very welcome to live in fool's paradise.

Just to provide you with some basic information on how it work.

Supreme Court can only interpret the Constitution, or decide how the framers intended for the Articles and Amendments to be applied. It can not TAKEUP/STRUCK-DOWN UNLESS its against the basic human rights and If CJ is thinking to take up 18th amendment down (as this article suggests), he is just showing his true colors. There is nothing in 18th amendment that violates basic human rights.

PS: I see where you are coming from. Its easy to taunt others but hard to come up with valid argument :)

36

Hey, thats an excellent reason to be out of line for a top judge who is portrayed as and angel and this reason pretty much works everywhere :k: for example

  • hum bijlee choree ker rahey hain tu kia hwoa? wo else is not doing it?
  • hum tax nahi daiy rahey tu kia howa? who else is giving it?
  • hum naqal ker rahey hain tu kia howa? who else is not doing it?
  • hum rishwar lai rahey hain tu kia howa? who else is not taking it?

u see …

37

The executive and judiciary must function within their specified domains working in harmony with each other. Confrontation is bad for the system and counterproductive for the progress and prosperity of the country. We all want to see a free judiciary which works independently and in an impartial and fair manner so as to meet the expectations of the people. Striking down the NRO was a step in the right direction but the judiciary must not exceed its domain.

The main problem for Zardari and the PPP government is that the present CJP will be in power as long as they are in power. Iftikhar Chaudhary is 61 now and as per Pakistani constitution once you become the top judge or CJP you carry on till the age of retirement (which is 65 for CJP) and Iftikhar Chaudhary turns 65 in December 2013!

38

Re: CJ confrontational on 18th Amendment?

^ Personally I think things are settling down and as Sh Rasheed says, there will be a "haviee fire" here and a "haviee fire" there but nothing serious .... but hey, you know know :)

39

The article discussed is about the constitional amendment. You want to discuss something else by all means open a new thread.

And no you are wrong. The Supreme Court does not only interpret the Constitution. It also has the additional task of ensuring that all amendments to the constitution are in the spirit of the original constitution.

Lastly would you please prove:

[quote]
It can not TAKEUP/STRUCK-DOWN UNLESS its against the basic human rights
[/quote]

Since you made the claim. Prove it.

40

Re: CJ confrontational on 18th Amendment?

Read this news and think.
What they are doing and where?
Remember this man Faqeer has been granted two years extension.
Question of ethics

‘Hope at Last’ launched
*Staff Report *

ISLAMABAD: The launching ceremony of newly published book “Hope At Last” authored by Moinuddin was held in the Supreme Court (SC) Building, Islamabad on Sunday during the tea break of the concluding session of the National Judicial Conference 2010.

The book has been written on the struggle for the restoration of judiciary and the role of Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry in this regard.

The book covers the movement that started in 2007 and continued till 2009 for rule of law and supremacy of Constitution.

It has given an account of special events of his lordships for dispensation of justice without fear or favour that how he provided relief to litigants and prisoners by spending his holidays in jails with prisoners in order to get first hand knowledge of their problems.

The book also narrates the suo moto actions taken by the Chief Justice Pakistan in the best interest of the justice.

Supreme Court Registrar Dr Faqir Hussain and Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Qazi Muhammad Anwar addressed the launching ceremony and threw light on the contents of the book, which will be a valauable addition to books on history of Pakistan.

(Daily Times)