ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court issued notices to ex-DG ISI Faiz Hameed, former chief justice of Islamabad High Court (IHC) Anwar Kasi, Brig Irfan Ramay (retd) and the ex-registrar apex court Arbab Muhammad Arif in the case of Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s removal.
The counsels of former judge IHC Shaukat Siddiqui and Islamabad Bar Association (IBA) were directed to file the amended petitions and provide the respondents’ addresses within one week so that notices be issued to them. The SC office was ordered to send notices to the respondents after receiving the amended petitions.
A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, on Friday, heard the petitions of Shaukat Siddiqui, IBA, and Karachi Bar Association, which were filed in 2018, against the SJC recommendations and the notification to remove Justice Siddiqui as a judge of the IHC. The proceeding was telecast live on the Supreme Court YouTube channel.
SC adjourns former judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s plea against removal
Shaukat Siddiqui and the IBA a day ago (Thursday) had filed applications before the Supreme Court to array former army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa (retd), ex-DG ISI Lt-General Faiz Hameed (retd), IHC ex-CJ Justice Anwar Khan Kasi, former SC Registrar Arbab Muhammad Arif, Brig Irfan Ramay (retd), Brig Faisal Marwat (retd), and Brig Tahir Wafai (retd).
However, after the proceeding the lawyers of Siddiqui and IBA told the bench that they would retain the names of Faiz Hameed, Anwar Kasi, Irfan Ramay and Arbab Muhammad Arif as respondents, but exclude others as they are not directly involved.
Shaukat Siddiqui in his petition has mentioned that Faiz Hameed has visited his residence twice. First time with Brig Ramay (retd) and second time he came alone and pressurised him not to grant bail to Nawaz Sharif before the elections.
He also stated in the petition that Faiz once told him that as he was not cooperating with them; therefore, General Bajwa is annoyed with him.
The chief justice said as serious allegations have been levelled; therefore, the persons who been made respondents should be given opportunity to file their responses. He said they would not proceed in this matter without considering and examining their responses; therefore, notices be issued.
During the hearing, the chief justice pointed out that they have levelled serious allegations in their petitions against former army officers.
He inquired what direct advantage the persons have gained. Who have been arrayed in the applications? He questioned whether these persons themselves or their relatives were contesting the elections at the relevant times. Whether any General had desired to become Prime Minister, or they were acting as facilitators for the benefit of someone.
He further inquired whether the alleged persons worked to damage one man and benefit other. He noted that the petitioners have made facilitators as party, but reluctant to implead the beneficiary in the instant matter.
Hamid Khan, who represented Shaukat Siddiqui, contended that this is the case of political engineering; the establishment should not get involved in the political issues.
The chief justice asked the counsel why he is not telling the whole truth, adding manipulation was being done for someone and with some purpose. This was assault on democracy, constitution and judiciary.
Salahuddin Ahmed, lawyer of IBA, contended if the process start and certain facts emerge then other persons could be included in this case. We should go step by step. The chief justice said the incidents were inter-connected, adding the specific manipulation was planned to benefit some persons in the elections 2018.
Salahuddin said precise manoeuvring in the judiciary was done through Generals to benefit some in the elections. He said there are three possibilities, first to block the way of Nawaz Sharif so that he could not contest the elections. It was done to favour Nawaz Sharif’s opponent, and third it was done to benefit someone else. He said; “Therefore I can’t conclusively say that it was done to benefit Imran Khan.
He asked to appoint an inquiry commission to probe this matter.“ The case was adjourned until after the winter vacations.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed.