PTI lawyer objecting to SC bench expelled from courtroom on CJP orders

Quite an alarming situation developed at the start of the hearing of the review petition filed against the interpretation of Article 63-A of the constitution on Wednesday, when PTI’s lawyer Mustafeen Kazmi said that the entire bench constituted to form the case was ‘unconstitutional’, prompting Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Qazi Faez Isa to remark that the lawyer’s tone and behaviour was threatening, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.

Addressing another PTI’s lawyer Ali Zafar, the chief justice said, “Just look at his demeanor. Look at the way he is talking.”

Zafar replied he had nothing to do with it.

The CJP later ordered the security staff to expel the lawyer from the courtroom.

Following his exit, Justice Isa remarked that insulting the chief justice had now become a routine.

Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan said now media men would base their programmes on the lawyer’s rude behaviour and consequently his expulsion from the courtroom.

A five-member larger bench, headed by CJP Isa, heard the review plea filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).

Other judges on the bench are Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Mandokhel, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel.

Addressing Ali Zafar, Justice Mandokhel said whatever soft corner the bench had for you was now over after your colleague’s bad conduct.

Zafar replied he could not be blamed for that. “I am speaking politely,” he added.

Disagreeing with the reply, the chief justice said, “No. It is your fault as well. After all, you are a senator. You could have asked him to keep his mouth shut.”

Zafar went on to say that his today’s arguments would be quite strong.

However, he said that before he could give his arguments, he wanted to consult the former prime minister and PTI founder Imran Khan. “You had said that this was a constitutional matter. And Imran is not only a former prime minister but he is also a petitioner in the case. Besides that, he has an understanding of the constitution. He knows what to say and when.”

Justice Isa asked him to go ahead with his arguments.

“This means that you have turned down my request for a meeting with the former prime minister,” PTI’s lawyer said.

Justice Afghan said that he could have met the PTI founder yesterday.

Zafar said this meant that the bench would not allow him to meet with Imran.

Ali Zafar also said that the bench constituted to hear the case was not ‘constitutional’.

The CJP asked him whether he was threatening the bench.

Justice Jamal Mandokhel retorted, “Is this the way you treat your institutions?”

The chief justice said Saqib Nisar, a former CJP, had sent several parliamentarians to jail. “My only crime is that I tolerate people.”

Zafar said that Justice Mansoor did not attend yesterday’s meeting and wrote a letter instead. “I want to read that letter.”

He said that Justice Mansoor had recommended the formation of a full court on the constitutional ordinance.

The CJP asked him to just read the relevant portion of the letter. “Do you want to embarrass the judges?” he questioned.

The PTI’s lawyer requested the chief justice to allow him to give arguments; or otherwise, he would leave the courtroom.

He further said that it was the apex court’s decision that the time to file a review petition started after the release of a short verdict by the court.

Justice Isa remarked he did not think what his fellow judge had written in his letter yesterday was entirely within the limits prescribed by the constitution. “If I stop attending the judges’ committee meeting, this does not imply that the SC will cease to exist.”

Justice Mandokhel said that judges could not lecture the nation on the constitution. “All we can do is to give verdicts according to our conscience and in the light of the constitution,” he added.

Zafar said that on September 30, Justice Munib Akhtar recused from hearing the case under review. “Therefore, the bench should not hear the case in Justice Munib’s absence,” he argued.

The court, however, rejected the PTI’s lawyer’s objection.

Addressing Zafar, the CJP said, “You requested us to pronounce the verdict. See we have pronounced it.”

“It is our unanimous decision that all objections to the formation of the bench are rejected,” Justice Isa added.

Disagreeing with the chief justice’s assertion, PTI’s lawyer said those very judges who had constituted the bench were now part of it.

The CJP replied that if that had been the case, members of the judges’ committee could never be included in any bench. 

He went on to say, “You say unpleasant things about us. Now listen! We are the ones whose ancestors had played a role in the creation of Pakistan.”

“We are not those whose actions led to the breakup of the country.”  

Addressing PTI’s lawyer, Justice Isa said, “Zafar sab, you simply cannot choose the judges of your liking. Such an approach is devastating.”

“Whether benches in the past were formed on the basis of seniority,” he asked.

Former president Arif Alvi, who was from the PTI, the chief justice went on to say, had sent a reference, seeking interpretation of Article 63-A. “At that time, the presidential reference related to former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s hanging was also pending.”

The CJP said that Babar Awan had appeared as a lawyer in both these references. “Awan should have said at the very start that the reference already pending should be heard first.”

Justice Mandokhel remarked he was part of the bench that had heard the presidential reference, seeking an interpretation of Article 63-A of the constitution. “Now how can I refuse to sit on the bench hearing the review plea? Would not that amount to the violation of the oath I have taken?” he questioned.

Later, accepting the PTI’s lawyer’s request to meet Imran Khan in Adiala Jail, the apex court ordered the government to ensure that the meeting took place at the earliest. “Zafar can meet the former prime minister either today or by 10:00 AM in the morning,” the SC ordered.  

The chief justice then adjourned the case’s hearing until tomorrow.

Reporter: Amanat Gishkori