The Hypocrisy of Chief Justice Chaudhary
http://pakistanpolitics.net/?s=The+Hypocrisy+of+Chief+Justice+Chaudhary
On March 9, 2007, President Parvez Musharraf suspended Iftikhar Chaudhary, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, under the authority of Section 209(5)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan. President Musharraf’s reference against the Chief Justice alleged that the latter had used his position for personal gain and nepotism. The matter was sent to the Supreme Judicial Counsel for decisions. However, even before the proceedings began, the suspended Chief Justice decided to muster public support against his suspension. He held rallies, called press conferences and addressed members of the legal fraternity regarding the injustice of his suspension. In a case of great irony, the Chief Justice of the country rather than having faith in nation’s judiciary circumvented it altogether and appealed a legal matter to the court of public opinion.
During the course of his extra-judicial activism, Iftikhar Chaudhary stated that in Pakistan, “no one can over-step the constitutional limits.” Conveniently, he failed to notice that the reference against him was filed in accordance with the nation’s constitution – a document which he had sworn to protect and respect. Yet, the moment the constitution targeted him he disregarded it, while incorrectly concluding in front the nation, that, in fact, it was the President’s actions that were unconstitutional. It is an odd day indeed when a justice of the court – who is nothing more than an appointed officer of the executive – begins to court and rely upon the populace to become reappointed. Much was said in his rallies about separation of powers. However, separation of powers, as any reading of Montesquieu will confirm, also prevents a justice from turning into a politician. But, apparently not in Pakistan.
On May 7, 2007, while he was still awaiting the decision of the Supreme Judicial Council, the chief justice said some memorable words: “The nations and states based on dictatorship, instead of supremacy of constitution, rule of law and protection of basic human rights are destroyed. There is no more concept of dictatorship. These all are bitter lessons of history and the nations which do not learn from history and repeat mistakes have to pay the price.” The only trouble with this argument was that the chief justice had been among those who had endorsed the constitutional amendment which confirmed President Musharraf’s just a few years ago. In other words, on May 7, 2007, the chief justice was impeaching his own legal determination. The fact of the matter was that the President’s respect for proper judicial procedure was recognized by other justices. For example, Justice Ramsday observed that this was the first time since 1970, when the constitution has been used to suspend an adjudicator rather than removing him defecto by illegal means (that is to say, killing him or something equally heinous). The argument that the chief justice thus ended up peddling before the public was that it was wrong for a President to follow constitutional process when undertaking an investigation. Further, the actions of the chief justice showed that he considered that the judiciary should have complete immunity and should not be investigated even when charges of nepotism and self gain exist against them, not even by the executive that is responsible for appointing them.
The Chief Justice’s trip around the nation resulted in the May 12, 2007 mayhem in Karachi, in which 34 people died and over 140 were injured. The judicial bench investigating the chief justice took notice of these events. Justice Ramday went so far as to say that this case was of extreme importance given “there is disquiet in the land and blood is being spilled in the street.” Even though the bench had claimed that it would not be pursued by public opinion and would consider the case on its merits, the chief justice’s marshalling of public opinion, and the resulting pandemonium which he could have prevented by not engaging in his press conferences, subverted any chance of that. Justice Ramday was forced to note that judges “who quit the judiciary get warm acceptance from the public as well as the bar.” Before the case was even argued, the chief justice’s populist agitation had influened the judiciary – an influence that every judge usually stands against.
On July 20, 2007, when the decision of the court was announced, no one was surprised that the chief justice was reinstated. The public opinion by this time was so set against the government that any other decision would have been considered unacceptable. The Chief Justice was back on his job on July 21, 2007. In a private matter, represented by Advocate Sharifuddin Pirzada, the CJ refused to give him hearing. Mr. Pirzada, was the lead counsel for the government in the case against CJ.
The CJ conduct in the matter has shown following things: (a) he has no respect or confidence for the judiciary. If he did, he would have waited for the decision of the Supreme Judicial Council rather than trying to appeal to the public. The fact that the Chief Justice had no confidence in the judiciary has confirmed to the common man that the judiciary in Pakistan cannot be expected to make a just decision. This will have severe repercussions in the future of the country, and potentially even against the Supreme Court which the Chief Justice leads again (b) The Chief Justice is now a political figure. He has very clearly stated his opinion against the government. He formed informal alliance with the political parties who supported him, and used him as symbol to agitate against the government. (c) He tried to influence the judiciary by building pressure of public opinion, forcing judiciary to recognise the public appeal of ex-judges and the consequential havoc the particular case was playing on the streets of the country. All of these are extra-legal methods of argument, and generally disavowed.
The behaviour of the chief justice makes his position as independent adjudicator extremely questionable. The chief justice’s opinion is clearly marked by political alliances and governmental prejudice. He has made it clear that he will not give audience to lawyers who represented the government in the matter against him. In fact, on the first day back to his job, he refused to hear a private matter advocated by Sharifuddin Pirzada because Mr. Pirzada had represented the government in the case against the chief justice It is therefore clear that the chief justice is unable to respect the basic rule of legal profession that lawyers are not the clients; rather, the lawyers only represent the opinion of their client. The reality is that the highest judge in Pakistan has a clear predisposition against certain lawyers. This kind of personal agenda does not advance rule of law. Not only is Iftikhar Ahmed Chaudary views set against the individual lawyers but his prejudice against the government is obvious as yesterday he rejected government’s application in the case of Javed Hashmi, who had been serving a sentence for treason and inciting mutiny in the armed forces. The Chief Justice, however, reserved his reasons for not allowing the government application. Chief Justice, given the dichotomy that exists between the legislature and judiciary, would have been better advised to have given a detailed judgement. This action of the Chief Justice, has served as a catalyst for political parties and self serving leaders, who recognising the prejudicial predisposition of the Chief Justice have filed numerous cases against the government in the Supreme Court to serve their own political agendas.
The question that beseeches the nation now is that whether someone who has impeached his own judicial opinions during the course of his populist activism, stepped outside the bounds of conduct befitting an officer of the judiciary, and demonstrated a clear prejudice against certain lawyers and government based on his political agenda, be the highest officer of the judiciary? Can he be expected to give fair and just decisions?
LINK - I will send to moderator as it does not allow me to post link.
COMMENTS: If these allegations were made against Chief Justice John Roberts there would be a formal congressional investigation. Why is Pakistan parliament not allowed to investigate these charges?
and what did Musharraf do? blackmail few judges by making video of their family members and what not… whats the difference? Zilch… Mushy is from same corrupt lot.