Apropos an article published in Business Recorder on 18th June 2013 wherein the writer has made the following remarks: "Attorneys general appointed by the Executive one after another obstructed the Supreme Court at every stage instead of assisting it. The case of AG Irfan Qadir (a PCO judge who could not be reappointed as a judge following the historic judgement of the Supreme Court in 2009) now removed by the new government, is a case in point".
Irfan Qadir, former Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP), has taken strong exception to the aforesaid words "which are factually and legally incorrect". According to him, "I was never a PCO judge and also never took oath under any PCO whatsoever. I was appointed a Judge by a duly elected President on the advice of a duly elected Prime Minister. On the other hand it is a matter of record that the present Chief Justice of Pakistan and other Judges of the present Supreme Court are either PCO judges or were the appointees of General Musharraf who imposed PCO in the country. It is also a matter of record that Pakistan Bar Council (on more than one occasion) has expressed its reservations about the constitutionality, legality and correctness of Judgement of 31st of July 2009.
"It is equally wrong on writer's part to have mentioned that I obstructed the Supreme Court instead of assisting it. I always assisted and advised the Supreme Court to follow the Constitution but made it clear that if the order of the Supreme Court was in violation of any provision of the Constitution, then, it must be disregarded at the least by the Attorney General who functions under article 100 of the Constitution."
Wajid Naeemuddin's reply: "In the Spotlight Column published last Tuesday (18 Jun 13) it was said that like other Zardari appointments former Attorney General Irfan Qadir obstructed the course of justice in the Supreme Court cases. It was also mentioned by the way that he was a PCO judge. In an email sent to me Irfan Qadir has said the Column was wrong on both counts.
"The fact of the matter is that when a news item is prominently published or broadcast and is not subsequently denied it could be assumed to be correct in essence and could be commented upon as such. However in the matter of whether Irfan Qadir was a PCO judge, I think I should have used the usual "allegedly" prefix and not stated the comment as an established fact. About the "obstruction" subject I wish to point out that on several occasions reports have appeared in both the print media and on TV about certain words and gestures used by then AG Irfan Qadir while cases were in progress in the Supreme Court which rankled the judges and led to altercations between them and the AG. I can, but would not like to quote those here.
"Finally I am happy to put on record here the relevant parts the email sent by the former Attorney General:
1: "I was never a PCO judge and also never took oath under any PCO whatsoever. I was appointed a Judge by a duly elected President on the advice of a duly elected Prime Minister".
2: "I always assisted and advised the Supreme Court to follow the Constitution but made it clear that if the order of the Supreme Court was in violation of any provision of the Constitution, then, it must be disregarded at the least by the Attorney General who functions under article 100 of the Constitution".
I personally regret any unhappiness caused to Irfan Qadir by the opinions expressed in the Column."