There are complaints against ‘some other judges’ as well: CJP

ISLAMABAD: Chairman Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) Justice Qazi Faez Isa said there are complaints against some other judges as well, but those will be decided sequence-wise.

Justice Faez further said the complaints have been referred to the Supreme Court judges for their opinion. The Council decided not to issue notices to ex-judge Mazahar Naqvi’s sons. However, if they want to attend the SJC’s proceeding, which is conducted in the open court, they can do so.

The SJC, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, who is also chairman of the SJC, and comprises two most senior judges of the Supreme Court – Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, and – Lahore High Court (LHC) Chief Justice Muhammad Ameer Bhatti and Balochistan High Court (BHC) Chief Justice Naeem Afghan on Friday heard the complaints against former SC judge Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi in Courtroom No. 1 in open court as ex-judge had asked the Council that his case be heard in open court.

Every institution should do its job: CJP

Former judge SC Mazahar Naqvi wrote a letter to the SJC secretary, which emerged on Friday. The chief justice yesterday mentioned that Justice Naqvi had written a letter to the SJC for the cancellation of the power of attorney that he extended to Khawaja Haris to represent him before the Council.

The letter said after his resignation, the SJC has “no jurisdiction to initiate or continue with any proceedings” against him.

Justice Naqvi stated that he was conveyed the Council’s order dated January 12 which showed that proceedings against him continued despite him having resigned and no longer remaining an SC judge after President Arif Alvi accepted his resignation.

Noting that the Council was continuing with the proceedings under Article 209 of the Constitution, he stated: “This is to inform that as per the law and the Constitution, as it stands today, as well as, in past precedents that the SJC has no jurisdiction to initiate or continue with any proceedings under Article 209 of the Constitution in any matter pertaining to a person who is no longer holding the office of superior court, i.e., high court or Supreme Court.”

The former judge further said that the January 12 order and subsequent proceedings were “illegal and without lawful authority”. He asserted that the SJC was “acting beyond its jurisdiction”. “Therefore, I am neither obliged nor legally or constitutionally bound to participate in these proceedings which are without constitutional domain,” Justice Naqvi wrote.

Noting that Khawaja Harris Ahmad was representing him before the council, he said the power of attorney extended to the lawyer was “no more in (the) field and has become infructuous” as he was no longer an SC judge. “However, to resolve any ambiguity in this regard, the power of attorney is hereby withdrawn and stands cancelled by the undersigned. You are; therefore, requested to inform the SJC accordingly,” the letter stated.

During the SJC proceeding, Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan, who is a prosecutor in the complaint against Naqvi, produced three more witnesses. They recorded their statements and supplied the documents regarding House No. 114-E, Gulberg, Lahore, plots 357, 249, and 222, and two shops in Diyal Singh Mansion.

Mohammad Safdar Khan, another witness, informed that he purchased House No. 114-E, situated in Gulberg, Lahore, from Mazahar Naqvi through a registered sale deed, and paid him Rs130 million through two pay orders – one in the name of Chaudhry Shehbaz and other in the name of Mazahar Naqvi, and Rs30 million in cash.

When the SJC inquired why he had paid Rs50 million to Chaudhry Shahbaz, Safdar replied that Mazahar Naqvi had instructed him to make this payment to Chaudhry Shahbaz. Justice Faez pointed out that yesterday Chaudhry Shahbaz told the SJC that he received one pay order of Rs50 million from Lahore Smart City, Lahore.

Upon that, Safdar informed that he had been doing business with Lahore Smart City for the last 20 years, and as the owner of the housing scheme owed him money; therefore, he had asked the Smart City owner to pay Rs50 million to Chaudhry Shahbaz.

The hearing was adjourned for an indefinite period.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024