The government on Sunday clarified that the Presidential reference filed against Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had nothing to do with the Supreme Court judgement to annul the privatisation of Pakistan Steel Mills.
"There is no link at all between the Supreme Court judgement on privatisation of Pakistan Steel Mills and Presidential reference," said Privatisation Minister Zahid Hamid at a news conference here.
Responding to a query, he said that much has already been implemented by the government following the SC verdict on PSM privatisation.
Following the SC judgement, he said, the government had reconstituted the Council of Common Interests (CCI) which endorsed the PSM privatisation decision, taken way back in 1997.
"We have filed a review petition to seek guidance from the Supreme Court to carry on our privatisation process transparently. We have brought amendments in our privatisation rules as well," he said in reply to a question.
The government has faced scathing criticism over the much criticised privatisation of Pakistan Steel Mills later annulled by a full bench of Supreme Court, headed by Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
Zahid Hamid condemned the manhandling of Iftikhar Chaudhry and said it should not have happened.
Replying to a question, he said Iftikhar Chaudhry can not be removed if the Supreme Judicial Council recommends that he is not guilty of misconduct.
When asked whether the SJC recommendations would be binding on President General Pervez Musharraf, Zahid said SJC would present its report whether Iftikhar is guilty of misconduct or not.
He said that if SJC recommended that Iftikhar is not guilty of any misconduct then he can not be removed.
He urged the political parties and people not to debate the merits of SJC hearing and wait for the final judgement with patience.
Commenting on the strike call given by political parties, he said that they were trying to politicise a 'pure legal and constitutional' issue.
The lawyers community, he said, should not to pay attention to opposition forces who had their own vested interests. He said the legal fraternity had every right to protest, but they should uphold the sanctity of the supreme institution.
Comments
Comments are closed.