MUZAFFARABAD: In a rare move, the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Supreme Court on Friday sought “clarification” from an outspoken opposition lawmaker for his alleged anti-constitutional statement about the apex court.

A section of the vernacular press had on Friday quoted excerpts from the speech of Jammu Kashmir People’s Party (JKPP) president Sardar Khalid Ibrahim he had delivered in the Legislative Assembly session on Thursday during debate on AJK budget for fiscal year 2018-19.

Mr Ibrahim, who is known for speaking straight from the shoulder, had reportedly alleged, among other things, that the recent appointment of five judges in the AJK High Court was the result of a “deal” on abolition of the AJK Council.

He had recalled that in 2010 he had publicly stated that the office of AJK chief justice (CJ) had become a “clock tower” because the then CJ Reaz Akhtar Chaudhry occupied three offices simultaneously.

“When Raja Farooq Haider had sought my support in 2010 to oust Mr Chaudhry, I had instantly given the nod to the move… Even today, if someone seeks a similar support from me to send the sitting [AJK] CJ and [the recently appointed] five judges home, I am ready for it,” he had stated on the floor of the house.

The incumbent premier Raja Farooq Haider was holding the same office in 2010, when a reference was filed by his government against the then AJK CJ Reaz Akhtar Chaudhry, eventually forcing him to resign at the end of a nerve-racking judicial crises.

Sources in the AJK apex court told Dawn that as Mr Ibrahim’s speech was covered by many local newspapers in their Friday issues, registrar Sardar Muhammad Rahim Khan “put up a note along with the newspaper

clippings” before CJ Chaudhry Muhammad Ibrahim Zia who detailed senior judge Raja Saeed Akram Khan to deal with the matter.

“The senior judge has sought clarification from Sardar Khalid Ibrahim regarding his statement which is contrary to the AJK Constitution and has fixed June 5 for the purpose,” said a brief press release by the apex court.

However, when Dawn contacted Mr Ibrahim, he said, without mincing words, that he would not respond to the notice.

“I stand by my speech … and in a day or two I may also address a press conference on the same reservations that I have expressed on the floor of the house,” he said.

Section 30-A of AJK’s Constitution dealing with restrictions on discussion in Assembly or Council says that no discussion shall take place with respect to the conduct of any judge of the AJK Supreme Court or the High Court in the discharge of his duties.

Mr Ibrahim had won July 2106 election from Rawalakot city as an ally of the PML-N. However, he quit the alliance shortly after the installation of the PML-N government due to differences over some issues and chose to sit on opposition benches.

The differences had emerged following PML-N’s support to PPP to clinch one of the five reserved seats for women and (later) got its nominee elected as leader of the opposition, as well as nomination of a ‘non-political’ person – Mohammad Masood Khan – for the office of AJK president.

Published in Dawn, May 26th, 2018