ISLAMABAD: The Balochistan Bar Association (BBA) intends to join the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) by filing a similar petition pushing contempt charges against the law minister as well as former attorney general Anwar Mansoor Khan.

Earlier, the PBC through it Vice Chairman Abid Saqi had moved a contempt petition under Article 204 of the Constitution read with Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003.

BBA President Asif Reki told Dawn on Saturday that his bar had decided unanimously to move the contempt of court petition against the law minister and former AG for what he called an irresponsible statement Mr Khan had made before the 10-judge full court of the Supreme Court while defending the federal government in the Qazi Faez Isa case and thus scandalising the top judiciary.

“The petition is ready and may be filed sometime next week,” Mr Reki said, adding that either the senior counsel Hamid Khan or Rasheed A Razvi would be filing the petition.

In a statement, Mr Reki also alleged that the statement made by the former attorney general expressing no-confidence in the members of the full court had exposed the deep-rooted conspiracy against the judiciary.

Balochistan Bar Association president says Anwar Mansoor Khan’s statement exposed the conspiracy against the judiciary

On Feb 20, Anwar Mansoor Khan had to resign as attorney general after making a controversial statement before the Supreme Court. Although the former attorney general claimed that he quit the office of his own volition in compliance with an earlier demand of the PBC, the law ministry had stated that he was asked to resign.

On the contrary, Anwar Mansoor told a number of media outlets that the statement he made before the court was discussed at the government level.

During a hearing the Supreme Court had categorically asked Mr Khan to apologise or produce evidence on the basis of which he had levelled allegations against the members of the bench without naming anyone. The court had, however, restrained the media from reporting the allegations.

Earlier in its contempt petition, the PBC had pleaded that the former attorney general had cast aspersions on the judges of the apex court and criticised and scandalised them which constituted judicial contempt.

The fact that the attorney general did so made his offence unpardonable since a clear and conscious attempt was made to lower the authority of the apex court and to bring the administration of law into disrespect, disrepute and to scandalise the judges of the Supreme Court in relation to their judicial work, the petition argued.

The contempt petition has also recalled that in his rejoinder before the Supreme Judicial Council which was seized with the presidential reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the former attorney general had also levelled allegations by stating that the respondent judge was suffering from two mental illnesses. This clears the fact that what had been stated before the apex court was not an isolated incident.

It is likely that the Supreme Court may take up the PBC’s contempt petition whenever it will resume the hearing in the Justice Isa case on March 30.

Meanwhile, former PBC vice chairman Syed Amjad Shah criticised what he described as an uncalled for statement by Vice President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Aurangzeb Asad Khan in which he had disowned the statement of SCBA President Syed Qalb-i-Hassan pointing towards attempts to undermine the independence of the judiciary and to divide the legal fraternity by alluring material benefit to some advocates.

A joint statement by the SCBA and the PBC had demanded that the government withdraw the presidential reference against Justice Isa and had accused it of dividing the judiciary as well as the legal fraternity.

Syed Amjad Shah explained that whatever had been stated in the joint statement it was made in view of the unanimous resolution adopted during nine different conventions held by the lawyers’ community in different parts of the country.

Therefore whatever statement was issued by the SCBA president and PBC vice chairman it was in accordance with the resolutions and Aurangzeb Khan’s statement was in violation of the policy of the legal fraternity.

Thus statements of these lawyers’ leaders expressing the resolve of the legal fraternity of defending the cause of supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law and independence of the judiciary, were in line with the longstanding stance and declared policy of the legal fraternity, he said.

Any attempt by any individual to go against them and to disown and violate the policy, presumably for some material gains or offer of appointment as law officer, was not only condemnable but also warranted disciplinary action by the Bar councils.

Mr Shah said the uncalled for statement of Aurangzeb Khan, prima facie, seemed to have been issued under influence of the government lobby for some personal benefit, disregarding the stance and policy of the legal fraternity.

Published in Dawn, March 1st, 2020