ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan, Qazi Faez Isa delineated 11 reasons for replacing Justice Munib Akhtar in the reconstituted judges committee, notified under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Amendment Ordinance, 2024.
The chief justice, being chairman of the Committee, on Thursday, responded to a letter of Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, which he wrote to the secretary of the committee on September 23. Justice Mansoor had asked the secretary to place his letter before the reconstituted committee members on his behalf, and the contents of the letter are recorded in the Committee’s minutes, held on September 23.
The most senior puisne judge, had raised objections on amending the Practice and Procedure Act, its timing and why within hours of the promulgation of the ordinance, the reconstituted committee was notified, and no reasons were given as to why the second senior most judge, Justice Munib Akhtar, was removed from the composition of the Committee.
He further questioned why the next senior most judge (Justice Yahya Afridi) was ignored and instead, the fourth senior most judge was nominated as a member of the committee. CJP Qazi Faez’s reply states; legally you also cannot question who I may nominate as the third member of the Committee, however, since I have always advocated accountability and transparency, I shall provide reasons why Justice Munib Akhtar has been replaced. Let it be remembered that this I do because of your insistence, lest someone takes umbrage.
The chief justice mentioned 11 reasons for replacing Justice Munib Akhtar;
1) Justice Akhtar ardently opposed the Act, which had also removed the dominance of the Chief Justice over the Supreme Court.
2) He was one of the two judges who availed of the full summer vacations; indifferent to the pilling backlog of cases.
3) While on vacations and not available to do court work, he insisted on participating in the Committee meetings, suggesting his lack of trust in the next senior judge (Justice Yahya Afridi).
4) The Act stipulates that urgent cases are to be fixed within 14 days but this statutory provision and the constitutional right to seek review was negated by his refusal to hear urgent constitutional cases while he was vacationing.
5) Disrespecting those who were his seniors (the ad hoc judges) and selecting 1100 specific cases and confining them to hear only those cases, something wholly unprecedented.
6) Not allowing ad hoc judges to be part of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court to hear the long pending cases.
7) Stating that the other ad hoc judge must do ‘chamber work’ till his distinguished colleague returned from leave on account of a bereavement in his family.
8) Display of rude and unreasonable behaviour towards a distinguished member of the Committee, which also comprising of all the Chief Justices, senior puisne judges, distinguished members of the Bar, and walking out of the meeting.
9) The bench headed by him adjourns most cases and often finishes its work before 11 a.m.; a concern expressed by his companion judges.
10) Issuing stay orders in respect of matters wherein reference is made to him, as in the audio-leaks case.
11) While quick in granting injunctive relief in important constitutional cases, but then not hearing and deciding them.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments