NAB amendments case verdict: Outgoing CJP accused of failing to keep ‘judicial propriety’

ISLAMABAD: Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi said Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa while expressing his disagreement with the views of majority judgment in NAB amendments case did not keep the judicial propriety expected of a judge of a superior court.

In his additional note, he wrote, “I have carefully read the majority judgment authored by Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Chief Justice of Pakistan. Although I agree with the conclusion he reached, I regretfully find myself unable to endorse the reasoning.”

The majority judgment did not provide sufficient justification for the issues at hand. More importantly, unreasonable remarks were made about the Honourable former judges of this Court, whose judgment we are reviewing on appeal.

NAB amendments: SC accepts appeals against previous ruling

“In my humble opinion, judicial comity requires that, even when we disagree with the decisions of other judges, we do so with respect and constructiveness. Criticism should focus on legal principles rather than disparaging those who authored the original decision. While I concur with the ultimate conclusion, I feel compelled to offer my own reasoning in a manner that aligns with the respect and decorum expected within our judiciary hierarchy.”

He stated that Article XI of the Code of Conduct must be more strictly adhered to when a judge of a Superior Court expresses dissent or disagreement with the view of another judge of the same Court, as judges of Superior Courts, including the Chief Justice, are equal. It is; therefore, desirable that dissent and disagreement never take the form of comments akin to those of an appellate forum but should always be expressed with courtesy and restraint. Dissent and disagreement should remain confined to matters of law and, under no circumstances, extend to the conduct or personality of another judge.

Justice Hassan; however, has put a stamp that the majority judgment (by former CJP Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Ijazul Ahsan) had erroneously concluded that the provisions of the 2022 Amendments violate Articles 9, 14, 23, and 24 of the Constitution. He wrote; “The misinterpretation of the status of elected holders public office erroneously led the majority to conclude that the provisions of the 2022 Amendments violate Articles 9, 14, 23, and 24 of the Constitution, as they permit and encourage the mismanagement of public assets and wealth by elected holders of public office without any forum for accountability. Had the majority regarded them as public servants, their conclusion would likely have been different.”

The legislature has the power to enact laws including the power to retrospectively amend laws and thereby by bona fide remove causes of ineffectiveness or invalidity. When a law is enacted with retrospective effect, it is not considered as an encroachment upon judicial power.

However, the legislature cannot, by way of an enactment, declare a decision of the court as erroneous or a nullity, but can amend the statute or the provision so as to make it applicable to the past. The legislature has the power to rectify, through an amendment, a defect in law noticed in the enactment and even highlighted in the decision of the court, Justice Hassan wrote.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024