We apologize to the SC – No stay order! – by Ahmed Iqbalabadi
Many people have been committing the sin of saying that the Supreme Court and Lahore High Court have been providing support to the PML-N government in Punjab by allowing it to continue on a stay order. The CJP has been pricked by this sin for sometime and decided to take the bull by its horns on Friday, March 11, 2011, by asking the Advocate General and formerly an employee of the Sharif Family, Khwaja Harris, to check with the registrar of Supreme Court as well as the Supreme Court website if such a stay order existed.
Khwaja Harris complied. Sat down with the Registrar. Checked the Supreme Court website and reverted that no such stay order existed.
CJP was satisfied with the feedback and said “Mogambo khush hua!”. He further roared “check your facts next time before you make an allegation!”
This expediency can only be seen from the CJP when he is pricked and his financial supporters in Raiwind are being affected.
Though a “Stay order” may not be in place, however, Shahid Orakzai’s petitions challenging Shahbaz Sharif’s eligibility to hold office remains unheard for more than two years. How can the Supreme Court hear such cases when it has important issues on hand like: humiliating the PPP Government and President Asif Zardari every now and then.
We publicly apologize to the Supreme Court that there is no stay order, however, we will now say that Supreme Court cannot hear these cases against Shahbaz Sharif as they are canvassing and paving way for the PML-N to form government sooner than later.
The case of missing stay order angers court
Dawn, March 12, 2011ISLAMABAD, March 11: The Supreme Court on Friday advised people to check their facts with the Registrar before making statements on sensitive matters.
The advice came in the wake of claims that the Punjab government was functioning on account of a stay order issued by the apex court.Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry issued the order after the chief law officer of Punjab, in the company of 10 press reporters, searched in vain for the alleged stay on the court website and relevant record of the court in the Registrar’s office. The office carried out the search on the chief justice’s instructions.
During the hearing of the Haj scam, a visibly disturbed court had taken notice of allegations raised during television programmes as well as published in the print media that the Punjab government was functioning on the basis of a stay order.
The controversy relates to a petition filed by Shahid Orakzai challenging the eligibility of Mian Shahbaz Sharif for holding the office of chief minister. The petition is pend ing before the Supreme Court. But no such stay was ever issued by the court.
In his petition, Mr Orakzai had contended that Shahbaz Sharif was not entitled to hold the office of the chief minister as he had vacated provincial constituency PP-10 Rawalpindi and had resigned from constituency PP-48 Bhakkar after his election as chief executive of the province.
Without having any seat in the assembly, he could not hold any office. On an earlier directive of the apex court, Mr Orakzai had withdrawn a similar petition pending before the Lahore High Court.
On Friday the chief justice in his order stated that the Advocate General of Punjab, Khawaja Mohammad Haris, was asked to clarify whether any case relating to stay being granted in favour of the Punjab government was pending in the Supreme Court.
Complying with the orders of the court, Khawaja Haris visited the office of the Registrar and examined the record and found no case pending. The registrar also submitted his report to the chief justice in which he sug gested that if any individual had information about such a stay order, he should bring it to the notice of the court.
The chief justice also offered that if any such case was pending, it would be fixed before the court on March 14.
In future, the chief justice said in his order, if anyone intends to make any statement in the above context, he should try check his facts with the registrar instead of coming out with a version which is not supported by the court record.
Meanwhile, in a press statement Khawaja Haris, the advocate general, asserted that there was no stay order of any nature passed by any court in Pakistan by virtue of which the government of Punjab was functioning.
He also requested the media to refrain from broadcasting or publishing such “false and malicious statements”.
Unless the authenticity of the statement is verified from the registrar of the court concerned, dissemination of such false statements was aimed at maligning the superior judiciary and amounted to committing contempt of court, Khawaja Haris said.
Supreme Court cannot hear these cases against Shahbaz Sharif, not very dissimilar to what they are doing to Asghar Khan’s petition against the ISI and GHQ and their allies (Jamaat Islami, PML-N and co)
Yes Nishapuri, He cannot dare to declare the reserve verdict on that case.
Yeh Kaana Dajjal (Anti Christ) kissi ko bhee chayn say nahee bethnay dey ga. He has to go.
Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/indjudiciary.htm
Adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held at Milan from 26 August to 6 September 1985 and endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985
Whereas in the Charter of the United Nations the peoples of the world affirm, inter alia , their determination to establish conditions under which justice can be maintained to achieve international co-operation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination,
Whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines in particular the principles of equality before the law, of the presumption of innocence and of the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law,
Whereas the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights both guarantee the exercise of those rights, and in addition, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further guarantees the right to be tried without undue delay,
Whereas frequently there still exists a gap between the vision underlying those principles and the actual situation,
Whereas the organization and administration of justice in every country should be inspired by those principles, and efforts should be undertaken to translate them fully into reality,
Whereas rules concerning the exercise of judicial office should aim at enabling judges to act in accordance with those principles,
Whereas judges are charged with the ultimate decision over life, freedoms, rights, duties and property of citizens,
Whereas the Sixth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, by its resolution 16, called upon the Committee on Crime Prevention and Control to include among its priorities the elaboration of guidelines relating to the independence of judges and the selection, professional training and status of judges and prosecutors,
Whereas it is, therefore, appropriate that consideration be first given to the role of judges in relation to the system of justice and to the importance of their selection, training and conduct,
The following basic principles, formulated to assist Member States in their task of securing and promoting the independence of the judiciary should be taken into account and respected by Governments within the framework of their national legislation and practice and be brought to the attention of judges, lawyers, members of the executive and the legislature and the public in general. The principles have been formulated principally with professional judges in mind, but they apply equally, as appropriate, to lay judges, where they exist.
Independence of the judiciary
1. The independence of the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in the Constitution or the law of the country. It is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.
2. The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.
3. The judiciary shall have jurisdiction over all issues of a judicial nature and shall have exclusive authority to decide whether an issue submitted for its decision is within its competence as defined by law.
4. There shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process, nor shall judicial decisions by the courts be subject to revision. This principle is without prejudice to judicial review or to mitigation or commutation by competent authorities of sentences imposed by the judiciary, in accordance with the law.
5. Everyone shall have the right to be tried by ordinary courts or tribunals using established legal procedures. Tribunals that do not use the duly established procedures of the legal process shall not be created to displace the jurisdiction belonging to the ordinary courts or judicial tribunals.
6. The principle of the independence of the judiciary entitles and requires the judiciary to ensure that judicial proceedings are conducted fairly and that the rights of the parties are respected.
7. It is the duty of each Member State to provide adequate resources to enable the judiciary to properly perform its functions.
Freedom of expression and association
8. In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, members of the judiciary are like other citizens entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly; provided, however, that in exercising such rights, judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
9. Judges shall be free to form and join associations of judges or other organizations to represent their interests, to promote their professional training and to protect their judicial independence.
Qualifications, selection and training
10. Persons selected for judicial office shall be individuals of integrity and ability with appropriate training or qualifications in law. Any method of judicial selection shall safeguard against judicial appointments for improper motives. In the selection of judges, there shall be no discrimination against a person on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or status, except that a requirement, that a candidate for judicial office must be a national of the country concerned, shall not be considered discriminatory.
Conditions of service and tenure
11. The term of office of judges, their independence, security, adequate remuneration, conditions of service, pensions and the age of retirement shall be adequately secured by law.
12. Judges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists.
13. Promotion of judges, wherever such a system exists, should be based on objective factors, in particular ability, integrity and experience.
14. The assignment of cases to judges within the court to which they belong is an internal matter of judicial administration.
Professional secrecy and immunity
15. The judiciary shall be bound by professional secrecy with regard to their deliberations and to confidential information acquired in the course of their duties other than in public proceedings, and shall not be compelled to testify on such matters.
16. Without prejudice to any disciplinary procedure or to any right of appeal or to compensation from the State, in accordance with national law, judges should enjoy personal immunity from civil suits for monetary damages for improper acts or omissions in the exercise of their judicial functions.
Discipline, suspension and removal
17. A charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge.
18. Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.
19. All disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct.
20. Decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review. This principle may not apply to the decisions of the highest court and those of the legislature in impeachment or similar proceedings.
As per International Criminal Court, Judges must follow the following principles while they are Judges:
Noting the solemn undertaking required by article 45 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (the “Statute”) and rule 5 (1) (a) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (the “Rules”);
Recalling the principles concerning judicial independence, impartiality and proper conduct specified in the Statute and the Rules;
Recognising the need for guidelines of general application to contribute to judicial independence and impartiality and with a view to ensuring the legitimacy and effectiveness of the international judicial process;
Having regard to the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1985) and other international and national rules and standards relating to judicial conduct;
Mindful of the international character of the Court and the special challenges facing the judges of the Court in the performance of their responsibilities;
Have agreed as follows:
Code of Judicial Ethics
Article 1
Adoption of the Code
This Code has been adopted by the judges pursuant to regulation 126 and shall be read subject to the Statute, the Rules and the Regulations of the Court.
Article 2
Use of terms
In this Code of Judicial Ethics the terms “Court”, “Statute”, “Rules” and “Regulations” shall have the meaning attached to them in the Regulations of the Court.
Article 3
Judicial independence
1. Judges shall uphold the independence of their office and the authority of the Court and shall conduct themselves accordingly in carrying out their judicial functions.
2. Judges shall not engage in any activity which is likely to interfere with their judicial functions or to affect confidence in their independence.
Article 4
Impartiality
1. Judges shall be impartial and ensure the appearance of impartiality in the discharge of their judicial functions.
2. Judges shall avoid any conflict of interest, or being placed in a situation which might reasonably be perceived as giving rise to a conflict of interest.
Article 5
Integrity
1. Judges shall conduct themselves with probity and integrity in accordance with their office, thereby enhancing public confidence in the judiciary.
2. Judges shall not directly or indirectly accept any gift, advantage, privilege or reward that can reasonably be perceived as being intended to influence the performance of their judicial functions.
Article 6
Confidentiality
Judges shall respect the confidentiality of consultations which relate to their judicial functions and the secrecy of deliberations.
Article 7
Diligence
1. Judges shall act diligently in the exercise of their duties and shall devote their professional activities to those duties.
2. Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance the knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for judicial office.
3. Judges shall perform all judicial duties properly and expeditiously.
4. Judges shall deliver their decisions and any other rulings without undue delay.
Article 8
Conduct during proceedings
1. In conducting judicial proceedings, judges shall maintain order, act in accordance with commonly accepted decorum, remain patient and courteous towards all participants and members of the public present and require them to act likewise.
2. Judges shall exercise vigilance in controlling the manner of questioning of witnesses or victims in accordance with the Rules and give special attention to the right of participants to the proceedings to equal protection and benefit of the law.
3. Judges shall avoid conduct or comments which are racist, sexist or otherwise degrading and, to the extent possible, ensure that any person participating in the proceedings refrains from such comments or conduct.
Article 9
Public expression and association
1. Judges shall exercise their freedom of expression and association in a manner that is compatible with their office and that does not affect or appear to affect judicial independence or impartiality.
2. While judges are free to participate in public debate on matters pertaining to legal subjects, the judiciary or the administration of justice, they shall not comment on pending cases and shall avoid expressing views which may undermine the standing and integrity of the Court.
Article 10
Extra-judicial activity
1. Judges shall not engage in any extra-judicial activity that is incompatible with their judicial function or the efficient and timely functioning of the Court, or that may affect or may reasonably appear to affect their independence or impartiality.
2. Judges shall not exercise any political function.
Article 11
Observance of the Code
1. The principles embodied in this Code shall serve as guidelines on the essential ethical standards required of judges in the performance of their duties. They are advisory in nature and have the object of assisting judges with respect to ethical and professional issues with which they are confronted.
2. Nothing in this Code is intended in any way to limit or restrict the judicial independence of the judges.
I was not shocked to hear a public statement or a verdict of a justice for to hang Musharraf publicly and a justice’s comments that more 80,000 politicians, merchants and civilian government official are dacoits and killers who can not be protected. Before that my understanding was different that an accused is not a criminal until proved I don’t know whether it is true or not. And it was not surprising to me that clerics like Aziz and Saeed were freed to move and operate with legitimate protection of supreme judiciary. I was not shocked to see name of Begum Nusrat Bhutto on top of NAB’s list it is not new to me because it is a legend which is always adopted by loyalists of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Both newly liberated fifth and sixth pillars of Pakistan being Islamists are not free to trial or to convict any deceased leader of and if they were allowed by their doctrine of Islam they must had put the name of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto on top of NAB’s list.