Special Parliamentary Committee reconvenes sans SIC-PTI to pick next CJP

[ad_1]

A meeting of the newly appointed Special Parliamentary Committee (SPC) to nominate the next chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) from among the three most senior Supreme Court judges reconvened on Tuesday night after failing to compel members associated with the PTI-Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) to attend proceedings.

CJP Qazi Faez Isa is set to retire as the top judge on October 25. Senior puisne judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah was previously set to be the next CJP under the seniority principle.

However, the newly enacted 26th Constitutional Amendment has brought numerous changes pertaining to the judiciary, among which is the process of appointing the CJP.

Under amendments to clause 3 of Article 175A, instead of the president appointing the “most senior judge of the Supreme Court” as the CJP, the top judge will now be “appointed on the recommendation of the Special Parliamentary Committee from amongst the three most senior” SC judges.

After Justice Shah, the next two senior apex court judges are Justices Munib Akhtar and Yahya Afridi.

Under a new clause 3C of Article 175A, the first nomination after the Amendment was in force is to be sent “within three days prior to the retirement” of the outgoing CJP.

This sets the deadline for the SPC to send its nomination by tonight, as Justice Isa is to retire on October 25.

The SPC, which was formed a day ago by National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq, comprises eight MNAs and four senators nominated by their respective parliamentary leaders. Political parties have representation in the committee based on their strength in the parliament.

The committee comprises PML-N’s Khawaja Asif, Ahsan Iqbal, Shaista Pervaiz Malik and Senator Azam Nazeer Tarar; PPP’s Raja Pervez Ashraf, Naveed Qamar and Senator Farooq H. Naek; Sunni Ittehad Council’s Hamid Raza; PTI-affiliated MNA Gohar Khan and Senator Ali Zafar; Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan MNA Rana Ansar; and Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl’s Senator Kamran Murtaza.

According to a notification issued by the NA secretariat, the in-camera meeting of the special committee was scheduled for 4pm.

Arriving for the meeting, Ashraf went inside without answering questions of reporters while Senator Murtaza said he had not yet received the names of the judges.

Meanwhile, Iqbal hoped that the next CJP’s name would be finalised today, adding that there was no “predecided” name and it would be discussed in the committee meeting.

Earlier, in a post on X, he quoted Greek philosopher Socrates to say: “Four things belong to a judge: to listen courteously, to answer wisely, to
consider soberly and to decide impartially.”

None of the committee members associated with the PTI showed up for the meeting.

Talking to reporters outside the meeting room, Tarar said nine committee members were present, adding that as per the Constitution, eight people were required to make a decision regarding the CJP.

He added that it was also stated that if any seat was left vacant or a member skipped the meeting, the committee’s proceedings would not be halted.

“The required number is present. But despite that, we are democratic-minded people and the beauty of democracy is in inclusiveness and everyone uniting.”

He said Sadiq, Ashraf, Iqbal, Murtaza and Ansar were requested to visit and compel the PTI-SIC members to reconsider and join the meeting.

“This is a major national issue so it is our wish … and we have decided to definitely make one attempt to request them to come and attend the meeting. We will reconvene the second session at 8:30pm again today.”

Meanwhile, Barrister Gohar said while speaking to the media outside the Islamabad High Court that the PTI had submitted names for the parliamentary committee before its political committee decided to boycott proceedings.

“We were told by the speaker to give names before our party’s political committee meeting took place at night. We gave our names as it was a time-bound process just in case we weren’t locked out of the process if the decision was made to attend,” Gohar said.

“The political committee’s decision is the party’s decision, we didn’t differentiate that these are our judges and those are theirs. However, as per the law, the senior most should be appointed,” he said while answering a reporter’s question.

PTI Central Information Secretary Waqas Akram earlier announced in a post on X that the party’s political committee decided it would not participate in the meeting.

In a statement on X, PTI leader Zulfi Bukhari said: “Of course, we will not be part of any parliamentary committee. We believe not only the amendments but in the manner they were passed it self was illegal.

“Why would we legitimise them and be part of this mafia that is destroying the independence of our judiciary?” he asked rhetorically. “We are not going to part take in parliamentary committee, loud and clear.”

Under the recent amendment, the committee would send the nominee’s name to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who shall forward the same to President Asif Ali Zardari for the appointment.

Another interesting contingency that has been provided for in the amendment is that of refusal or rebellion; a substitution in clause (3) of Article 175A, which details the nomination of the CJP from amongst the three most senior judges of the Supreme Court.

As per the amendment, in case the first nominee declines, one judge from the remaining two shall be nominated. If they too decline, the job may be offered to the third judge. And in case all three refuse, the next in the seniority line after the top three can also be brought into contention.

Justice Aminuddin Khan is the next most senior judge in the apex court after Justice Afridi.

The Karachi Bar Association has criticised the “non-transparent and hasty manner” in which the 26th Amendment was passed. It said there was no justifiable reason to deny the appointment of Justice Shah as the next chief justice.

Lawyers’ leaders have vowed to launch a protest movement against the Amendment along the same lines as the one in 2007.

video footage showed.

Addressing a federal cabinet meeting today, the premier said the amendments would help the “ordinary person whose legal matters have been pending before courts for years, and that person does not get justice”.

He hailed the formation of constitutional benches, saying: “The ordinary person will definitely have ease and there is very strong hope of their matters being resolved soon.”

Recalling the 2006 Charter of Democracy, the prime minister said the Amendment was the “accomplishment” of that vision.

PM Shehbaz said there had been “limitless deliberations” for the legislation among parliamentary parties, including the opposition. “This was a reflection of the spirit of consultation.”

The prime minister expressed his heartfelt gratitude to President Asif Ali Zardari, PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar, Law Minister Azam Nazeer and his political aide Rana Sanaullah. He also thanked his brother, PML-N President Nawaz Sharif, for his “full support and guidance”, as well as others who voted in the Amendment’s favour.

“I also thank the independent candidates, who did not take any party’s ticket neither joined any party […] that this bill passed with 65 votes in the Senate and 225 votes in the National Assembly.”

planned legal action against its lawmakers who voted for the amendment, going against the party lines — namely PTI-backed independent MNAs Zahoor Qureshi, Aurangzeb Khichi, Usman Ali and Mubarak Zeb.

“The party hereby issues a show cause notice to several individual party members for actions deemed to contravene established party directives,” Akram said in a post on X.

He stressed: “Clear instructions were communicated to remain within the designated safe area; however, we regrettably lost all contact.”

Akram clarified that while the party members were “not observed participating in the voting for the constitutional amendment”

However, he added, “due to their failure to comply with the explicit instructions to remain in the designated safe area, the party has reason to suspect that they may have been compromised”.

“These individuals are required to provide a comprehensive articulation of their positions. Upholding party unity is of paramount importance,” Akram said.

While speaking to Geo News on Monday night, PTI Secretary General Salman Akram Raja said that leaders who had lost contact with the party on the day of the voting would come under the party’s scrutiny.

He added that PTI MNA Zain Qureshi, the son of incarcerated former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, was one of those leaders.

Earlier on Monday, Qureshi had denied rumours that he had voted in favour of the Amendment. “I completely condemn and deny this,” he said in a video message posted on X.

Meanwhile, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) expressed “strong reservations” over certain aspects of the recently passed amendment.

“Although the amendments are more tempered than those proposed in earlier drafts, HRCP’s fear that the Act will erode judicial independence has not been allayed,” the rights group said in a statement.

“First, the manner in which constitutional benches are to be established, as well as their composition, raise serious concerns that, in practice, the credibility of these benches may be compromised by direct political influence.

“Second, the composition of the special parliamentary committee that will nominate the chief justice of Pakistan … gives the government of the day a dangerous advantage, potentially subjugating the judiciary in contravention of Pakistan’s obligations under Article 14 of the ICCPR.”

The group said it did not object to the amendment to Article 184(3) under which constitutional benches cannot exercise suo moto jurisdiction.

The HRCP acknowledged that Article 9A, which makes the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment a fundamental right, was a “significant and long-overdue amendment”, adding that the government must urgently implement it.

“Of deep concern to HRCP are the political opposition’s allegations of coercion with respect to supporting the passage of this Act. These are extremely serious and must weigh on the conscience of those who proposed the Act.

“Such allegations must not be dismissed out of hand. HRCP reiterates that the absence of careful and sustained public debate on a single, official version of the bill — which any constitutional amendment warrants — also raises questions as to the legitimacy of its intent,” the statement said.

Source link