ISLAMABAD: Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail recused from the constitutional bench for the hearing of the houbara bustard case.
A five-judge bench, headed by Justice AminudDin, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Musarrat Hilali on Tuesday heard a number of cases.
During the proceeding, Justice Mandokhail stated that he as a judge of the Balochistan High Court had previously heard a case related to hunting of houbara bustard; therefore, it is inappropriate to hear it in the Supreme Court, therefore, recused from the bench.
Additional Attorney General (AAG) Amir Rehman argued that the hunting of the houbara bustard was similar to the officially permitted hunting of the Markhor (Ibex).
Rehman referred to Markhor hunting as “trophy hunting,” a practice where hunting is allowed for specific animals under regulated conditions.
However, Justice Mandokhail told him that there is a difference between Houbara bustard hunting and Ibex trophy hunting, pointing out that the two practices are distinct.
Justice Mussarat Hilali stated that Houbara bustards are migratory birds, further highlighting the difference in their classification.
Former Justice Qazi Faez Isa of the Supreme Court had also raised serious concerns in a dissent note regarding the majority decision that overturned the 2015 ban on hunting Houbara bustard.
The hunting season will officially begin on November 3, 2024, and end at sunset on February 28, 2025. During this period, hunters must comply with the established regulations regarding approved shotguns.
The hearing of the case adjourned until next week.
The bench disposed of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) petition in Panama scam, as the JI lawyer agreed to approach the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) regarding the matter.
Justice Hilali remarked that in Panama case a special Joint Investigation Team was constituted to probe the allegations (against the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his family). “Don’t know what the fate is of other cases of Panama scam,” she asked.
JI counsel replied that it had been their stance that investigation should be conducted in all the 436 cases. The NAB deputy prosecutor informed that they have not received any application regarding the matter.
Upon that, Justice Mandokhail said the NAB itself can take action on information, adding the JI application is the information. Justice Hilali said that the Bureau still can take action after the NAB amendments. Justice Mandokhail asked the counsel that if NAB does not take action on JI petition then instead of approaching the Supreme Court, a petition should be filed before the High Court.
Former Ameer Jamaat-e-Islami Sirajul Haq in 2017 had filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to initiate an inquiry against all 436 Pakistanis named in the Panama leaks.
In April 2017, the largest document leak, Panama Papers figured some 436 Pakistanis, including the family members of ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, for allegedly establishing offshore companies.
The petition filed by the JI chief did not mention the name of any politician or businessman found involved in establishing offshore companies; however, asked the apex court to direct an inquiry into the Panama leaks. He had contended that a large number of the personalities, who were holder of public offices, were also involved in the commission of alleged offences.
The bench postponed the hearing of appointments in the higher judiciary of Gilgit-Baltistan.
The case was deferred at the request of the petitioner’s lawyer, Makhdoom Ali Khan, who cited personal circumstances and logistical challenges in travelling to Islamabad. Makhdoom requested a future date to present his arguments in person, as he believed that presenting the case via video link would not be feasible.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments