• Justice Mandokhail wonders how bench could ‘win over’ judge refusing to hear review of verdict he wrote
• CJP asks govt to facilitate Ali Zafar-Imran meeting
• Lawyer censured for making ‘uncalled for’ remarks

ISLAMABAD: As a handful of lawyers outside the Supreme Court chanted slogans against Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, a five-judge bench hearing a review petition against the top court’s judgement on Article 63A rejected objections raised by PTI lawyer Ali Zafar about the composition of the bench.

CJP Isa, however, asked the federal government to arrange a meeting between incarcerated PTI founder Imran Khan and Ali Zafar. The directions were issued after the counsel said he needed to consult his client to get instructions on how to develop his arguments in the case.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail — a member of the bench — however, asked would a judge be violating his oath if he refused to sit on the bench hearing the review against a judgement they had authored.

Should we take a ‘jirga’ to bring around a judge who did not want to join the bench despite requests, Justice Mandokhail quipped. He was apparently referring to Justice Munib Akhtar, who refused to become part of the five-member bench led by Justice Isa. It may be noted that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah also rebuffed a request by the CJP to join the bench, after which Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan was enlisted.

Verbal spat

The bench also took exception to a lawyer, who appeared at the rostrum and termed the present bench ‘unconstitutional’ in a distasteful manner. At that time, Ali Zafar was standing at the rostrum. The lawyer first approached Ali Zafar, at which the CJP inquired why the lawyer was disturbing the counsel.

To the bewilderment of Ali Zafar, Mustafain Kazmi took the microphone and questioned when the PTI was the aggrieved party, how come the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) had become involved in the present matter.

Since the lawyer was speaking without permission, CJP Isa asked him to take his seat. The lawyer ignored him and continued with his tirade. On his persistence, the CJP observed that he should be removed from the courtroom by police.

“Go ahead, call the police, this is what you always do,” the lawyer responded in an uncouth manner while leaving the rostrum.

He also said what was being done in the courtroom was ‘all fraud’. “There are some four hundred lawyers outside the court building and we will see how an adverse decision comes against the party,” the lawyer said.

At the time, scores of lawyers belonging to the PTI were chanting slogans against the CJP outside the court premises.

“He even has the audacity to threaten us,” the CJP regretted. “We will not accept this when insults are hurled to our face,” the top judge added.

Justice Mandokhail, while pointing towards Ali Zafar, regretted that this unpleasant event had stolen any “sympathy left with us” for the party, adding that his party intended to destroy every institution in the country.

CJP Isa remarked that his only fault was that he tolerated everything, otherwise, he could have sent people to jail like ex-CJP Saqib Nisar, or suspended their memberships. Ali Zafar, however, apologised for the lawyer’s conduct and recalled how the CJP took his criticism in the ‘bat’ symbol case with great dignity.

Farooq H. Naek, who is also the vice chairman of the Pakistan Bar Co­u­ncil, assured the court that the council would issue a notice to the lawyer.

Objection to bench

As he continued his arguments, Ali Zafar objected to the composition of the bench. After the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act, benches were to be formed as per the majority view of a three-member committee of judges. There was no scope in the law for two members of the committee to form benches, he contended. Ali Zafar also referred to the letter written by Justice Mansoor and observed that a full court meeting should deliberate upon the ordinance.

The CJP said he had no issues with summoning the full court, but after the committee the need for calling the full court had ended. He also recalled how during the last four years no full court meeting was called, it that was the first thing he did after becoming the CJP. “Now, there would neither be authoritarianism in the country nor in institutions,” the CJP said.

Ali Zafar insisted that the court should first decide whether the bench hearing the review petition was lawful, adding that he would present his arguments only once it had been settled. The CJP consulted the me­mbers of the five-judge bench and annou­n­ced that it was a unanimous decision that the objections on the formation of the bench were not sustainable.

When asked to argue on the merits of the case, Ali Zafar said since the court had decided not to include Justice Munib Akhtar, who was the author of the majority judgement, the court should allow him to consult his client, Imran Khan, for advice.

The proposed federal constitutional court also echoed at the fag-end of the hearing. Senator Farooq H. Naek said he was convinced that such a court should be constituted. At this point, CJP said this issue should not be discussed here.

Published in Dawn, October 3rd, 2024