C
commander
Guest
Courtroom No 1 today
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=23378
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Deciding the future of democracy
By Muhammad Ahmad Noorani
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court seemed set to correct monumental wrongs that followed the November 3, 2007, unconstitutional act of Pervez Musharraf, while adjudicating on different petitions that it took up on Monday.
The sense one had while sitting through the extraordinarily important proceedings, spanning three hours, was that Musharrafs unconstitutional act will be under intense scrutiny, with strong prospects of its quashment, as the decision was not expected to simply resolving the issue of recommendations of the two additional judges of the Sindh High Court (SHC).
All the 14 judges, precisely half of the present Supreme Court strength, sitting on the larger bench, were apparently extremely concerned at and displeased with the blatant breach of the Constitution on Nov 3, marked by the unconstitutional amendments to the presence of parliament, the disregard by some members of the superior judiciary of the Nov 3s seven-member benchs verdict by taking oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) and giving credence to the illegal judgments handed down by the PCO judiciary on constitutional petitions like the one in the Tikka Iqbal case.
What do you think is the important point on which the judgment of the Tikka Iqbal case is based? Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday asked Rasheed A Rizvi, after the counsel read out this decision.
The sentence where they wrote that the pre-November 3 judiciary was unable to read the writing on the wall,+ACI- Justice Ramday himself volunteered and said: +ACI-Those who wrote this judgment were of the view that a judge should act after reading the writing on the wall and should not read or think what his conscience says+ADs- what the principles of ethics and morality say+ADs- and what the rules and regulations or the Constitution of the country say. To them, the writing on the wall was everything they reflected it in their judgment.+ACI-
At one stage, Rizvi, who argued on behalf of the Sindh High Court Bar Association (SHCBA), said in the case of permanent appointment of Justice Zafar Sherwani and Rasheed Talwar, the president should have accepted the recommendation of de jure SHC Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali and should have ignored the contrary recommendation of Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, who, in fact, was a de facto chief justice of Pakistan.
Here, Justice Sardar Raza Khan asked Rizvi: +ACI-You are saying that Abdul Hameed Dogar was de facto chief justice, and the president shouldnt have looked into his recommendation. Can you tell us whether the president considered him as de facto chief justice?+ACI-
+ACI-Yes, My Lord. On March 21, 2009, the president issued an order in which Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was restored on the position he was holding on November 3, 2007, which means that Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry remained the actual chief justice of Pakistan during all this period,+ACI- Rizvi replied.
When the chief justice observed that the judiciary was responsible for most of the ills in the past, including hanging of a prime minister, removal of an elected prime minister by a dictator and Nov 3 action, and that at the moment, it was high time for the judiciary to give a right judgment to save democracy and the Constitution, representatives of the electronic media raced out of the courtroom No 1 to give beepers for a breaking news.
While reading out the proclamation of emergency order of Nov 3, Rizvi loudly cited the sentence with somewhat emphasis: +ACI-I, General Pervez Musharraf, proclaim the state of emergency,+ACI- the judges responded with questionable looks as if they were thinking as to how or under which constitutional clause an Army chief could issue such an order.
When Rizvi read out the text of the PCO, declaring that all the judges of the Supreme Court, Federal Shariat Court and high courts were ceased to be judges, the chief justice quickly remarked: +ACI-What was the fault of the Federal Shariat Court judges? Were they also releasing terrorists or destabilising the country, as alleged in his speech.+ACI-
At more than one points, Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry asked Rizvi to present before the court in detail the reasons (like the cases pending before the apex court at the time), which pushed the then ruler for the acts he committed on Nov 3. The chief justice said it was not the case of recommendation of two or three judges, but an extremely important constitutional issue.
When, following the instructions of the chief justice, Rizvi completed reading out the Nov 3 monumental speech of Musharraf, Justice Javed Iqbal remarked that there was a clear difference between +ACI-personal interests+ACI- and +ACI-Pakistan First+ACI-.
Justice Javed said all the judges, including the one accused in this speech of having gone to attend his daughters marriage ceremony, were ready to continue hearing of Musharrafs eligibility case after the Friday prayers on Nov 2 and also on Saturday and even on Sunday. That the judge had not even left Islamabad to attend his daughters marriage ceremony.
+ACI-I didnt want to take names, but it was the then attorney general and Sharifuddin Pirzada, who had requested the adjournment on medical grounds,+ACI- Justice Javed observed and said in fact, the then rulers wanted to get a judgment of their choice.
At one point, Justice Ramday said a massive damage was done when one person ruined the reputation of other institutions for the sake of his personal interests. +ACI-The corps commanders of the Pakistan Army might even not have the knowledge what was going to happen,+ACI- he observed.
After hearing Musharrafs speech from Rizvi, Justice Ramday said they were introducing independence of judiciary by detaining judges. Some of his interesting observations provoked smile on the faces of those present in the courtroom.
The concluding note was a very powerful pertinent. +ACI-The judgment in this case will decide the future of democracy in Pakistan,+ACI- was how Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry ended the days hearing.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=23378
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Deciding the future of democracy
By Muhammad Ahmad Noorani
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court seemed set to correct monumental wrongs that followed the November 3, 2007, unconstitutional act of Pervez Musharraf, while adjudicating on different petitions that it took up on Monday.
The sense one had while sitting through the extraordinarily important proceedings, spanning three hours, was that Musharrafs unconstitutional act will be under intense scrutiny, with strong prospects of its quashment, as the decision was not expected to simply resolving the issue of recommendations of the two additional judges of the Sindh High Court (SHC).
All the 14 judges, precisely half of the present Supreme Court strength, sitting on the larger bench, were apparently extremely concerned at and displeased with the blatant breach of the Constitution on Nov 3, marked by the unconstitutional amendments to the presence of parliament, the disregard by some members of the superior judiciary of the Nov 3s seven-member benchs verdict by taking oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) and giving credence to the illegal judgments handed down by the PCO judiciary on constitutional petitions like the one in the Tikka Iqbal case.
What do you think is the important point on which the judgment of the Tikka Iqbal case is based? Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday asked Rasheed A Rizvi, after the counsel read out this decision.
The sentence where they wrote that the pre-November 3 judiciary was unable to read the writing on the wall,+ACI- Justice Ramday himself volunteered and said: +ACI-Those who wrote this judgment were of the view that a judge should act after reading the writing on the wall and should not read or think what his conscience says+ADs- what the principles of ethics and morality say+ADs- and what the rules and regulations or the Constitution of the country say. To them, the writing on the wall was everything they reflected it in their judgment.+ACI-
At one stage, Rizvi, who argued on behalf of the Sindh High Court Bar Association (SHCBA), said in the case of permanent appointment of Justice Zafar Sherwani and Rasheed Talwar, the president should have accepted the recommendation of de jure SHC Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali and should have ignored the contrary recommendation of Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, who, in fact, was a de facto chief justice of Pakistan.
Here, Justice Sardar Raza Khan asked Rizvi: +ACI-You are saying that Abdul Hameed Dogar was de facto chief justice, and the president shouldnt have looked into his recommendation. Can you tell us whether the president considered him as de facto chief justice?+ACI-
+ACI-Yes, My Lord. On March 21, 2009, the president issued an order in which Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was restored on the position he was holding on November 3, 2007, which means that Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry remained the actual chief justice of Pakistan during all this period,+ACI- Rizvi replied.
When the chief justice observed that the judiciary was responsible for most of the ills in the past, including hanging of a prime minister, removal of an elected prime minister by a dictator and Nov 3 action, and that at the moment, it was high time for the judiciary to give a right judgment to save democracy and the Constitution, representatives of the electronic media raced out of the courtroom No 1 to give beepers for a breaking news.
While reading out the proclamation of emergency order of Nov 3, Rizvi loudly cited the sentence with somewhat emphasis: +ACI-I, General Pervez Musharraf, proclaim the state of emergency,+ACI- the judges responded with questionable looks as if they were thinking as to how or under which constitutional clause an Army chief could issue such an order.
When Rizvi read out the text of the PCO, declaring that all the judges of the Supreme Court, Federal Shariat Court and high courts were ceased to be judges, the chief justice quickly remarked: +ACI-What was the fault of the Federal Shariat Court judges? Were they also releasing terrorists or destabilising the country, as alleged in his speech.+ACI-
At more than one points, Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry asked Rizvi to present before the court in detail the reasons (like the cases pending before the apex court at the time), which pushed the then ruler for the acts he committed on Nov 3. The chief justice said it was not the case of recommendation of two or three judges, but an extremely important constitutional issue.
When, following the instructions of the chief justice, Rizvi completed reading out the Nov 3 monumental speech of Musharraf, Justice Javed Iqbal remarked that there was a clear difference between +ACI-personal interests+ACI- and +ACI-Pakistan First+ACI-.
Justice Javed said all the judges, including the one accused in this speech of having gone to attend his daughters marriage ceremony, were ready to continue hearing of Musharrafs eligibility case after the Friday prayers on Nov 2 and also on Saturday and even on Sunday. That the judge had not even left Islamabad to attend his daughters marriage ceremony.
+ACI-I didnt want to take names, but it was the then attorney general and Sharifuddin Pirzada, who had requested the adjournment on medical grounds,+ACI- Justice Javed observed and said in fact, the then rulers wanted to get a judgment of their choice.
At one point, Justice Ramday said a massive damage was done when one person ruined the reputation of other institutions for the sake of his personal interests. +ACI-The corps commanders of the Pakistan Army might even not have the knowledge what was going to happen,+ACI- he observed.
After hearing Musharrafs speech from Rizvi, Justice Ramday said they were introducing independence of judiciary by detaining judges. Some of his interesting observations provoked smile on the faces of those present in the courtroom.
The concluding note was a very powerful pertinent. +ACI-The judgment in this case will decide the future of democracy in Pakistan,+ACI- was how Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry ended the days hearing.
