Pakistan’s lord and his flies: On SCP’s contempt notices to Taj Haider and Sharjeel Memon

Related articles: LUBP Archive on Justice Deedar Shah

Contempt Notices But Only Against PPP-P and People of Sindh – by Abbas Bhutto

Shameless arrogance of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry et al

By Omar Khattab in Islamabad

God hurled Iblis/Lucifer to the earth because of his extreme arrogance. But who can take care of the Lucifer of Pakistan (aka Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry) who with his pack of judicial Rottweilers has decided to undermine democracy in Pakistan in order to suck up to the rightwing Islamofascist mafia which is comprised of the Saudi Embassy, the Ziaist generals, PML-N, and the Islamofascist parties like Jamaat-e-Islami, JUI, and Sipah-e-Sahaba.

We at Let Us Build Pakistan (LUBP) have been writing about the Chief and his fellow criminals and we will continue to expose them. And these criminals will continue to flout civil and legal norms of Pakistan. We do what we do, they will do what they do.

The Supremely Criminal Court (SCC) being presided over by the one and a half eyes monster has played yet another master stroke against democracy by issuing a contempt of court notice to democratically elected MPAs from the Sindh province (It is the Sindh province which does all the wrong things!).

The ‘crime’ committed by Pakistan Peoples Party members Taj Haider and Sharjeel Inam Memon is that they protested the SCC which disqualified Justice (retired) Deedar Hussain Shah for holding the office of the Chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The two political leaders of Sindh had objected to “interference of the judiciary in administrative affairs”.

It was their legal right to protest because courts in a democracy do not interfere in the domains of the executive. But this is Pakistan run by the Mafioso generals whose hatchet men are mullahs, judges, and Islamists. Like the late Sultan Rahi’s bullying bravado, the morally dead SCC has commanded Taj Haider and Sharjeel Inam Memon to appear before it and give explanation or they will be deprived of their membership of the Sindh Assembly. Thus, the will be of people who elected them will be trashed by the SCC.

But there is more than meets the eyes. You will recall that it was not just these two MPAs who protested against the Deedar Hussain Shah verdict. All the PPP MPAs did that and took out a protest procession. Then why these two MPAs only? The answer is very simple. Both these MPAs are Shias. Yes. This is where the SCC has played the great game to the utter delight of those who want turn Pakistan into an extension of the Wahabi House of Saud.

Why would the Lord and his Flies not take suo motu action against the ordinary people is anyone guess: They will get no kudos from the powerful.

Here is a proof and challenge. This video is about a woman. Millions of people have watched it, but not the Lord and his Flies. I challenge them to give justice to this woman.

35 responses to “Pakistan’s lord and his flies: On SCP’s contempt notices to Taj Haider and Sharjeel Memon”

  1. Two PPP leaders issued contempt notices by SC
    By Nasir Iqbal

    ISLAMABAD, March 26: Taking strict notice of the March 11 violence-ridden strike in Karachi and other parts of Sindh, the Supreme Court on Saturday asked two provincial leaders of the People’s Party to explain why they should not be charged with committing contempt for allegedly ridiculing a court ruling and instigating people against it.

    The contempt notices were issued against former senator and general secretary of the PPP’s Sindh chapter, Taj Haider, and the party’s provincial media coordinator, Sharjeel Inam Memon, under Article 204 of the Constitution relating to contempt of court and Section 3 of the Contempt of the Court Ordinance, 2003.

    They were asked to appear before the Supreme Court on Friday. Composition of the bench will be announced later.

    The notice asked Mr Memon also to explain to the court why he should not be disqualified as member of the provincial assembly for alleged utterances against the judiciary under the Constitution’s Article 63(1g) relating to disqualification for being convicted by a court or defaming or ridiculing the judiciary, and Article 113 relating to qualification or disqualification for assembly membership.

    Notices have also been issued to Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq, who under rules acts as a prosecutor in contempt matters, as well as to the advocate general of Sindh, Supreme Court Bar Association President Asma Jehangir and vice-chairman of the Sindh Bar Council.

    In a reaction to the Supreme Court verdict of declaring the appointment of Justice (retd) Deedar Hussain Shah as chairman of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) illegal, the PPP’s Sindh chapter had called for a strike that halted commercial and business activities in Karachi and other parts of the province.

    As a result, according to media reports, seven people lost their lives in different incidents of violence.

    Taking notice of the protest, the apex court wrote letters to the Sindh assembly secretary asking for a copy of a resolution passed by the provincial assembly condemning the ruling as well as to the Sindh chief secretary, inspector general of police, head of the Intelligence Bureau for Sindh and chairman of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, with a direction to submit reports about measures taken by their respective offices to control the law and order situation on that day.

    All these offices have submitted replies to the court, which include transcripts of statements of the two political leaders which, according to the Supreme Court notices, contained language which was “not appropriate and appeared to be contemptuous and scandalous bringing the judiciary and the court into hatred”.

    The two PPP leaders will not be the first to face contempt of court charges since a similar contempt proceeding is also pending against Interior Minister Rehman Malik before the Supreme Court for appointing a joint investigation team to probe a Pakistan Steel Mills scam instead of an FIA officer, Tariq Khosa, proposed by the court.

    Similarly, the apex court had also taken notice, though not on contempt grounds, of a statement last year of then information minister Qamar Zaman Kaira urging Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry to take suo motu notice of a newspaper report that claimed that Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif had a secret meeting with the chief justice.

    On Oct 2 last year, the Supreme Court, in a rare statement, had warned political leaders against impugning the impartiality of judges while commenting on court judgments and advised them to avoid unwarranted and uncalled for comments. The statement was issued after the court took notice of a controversial statement attributed to then labour and manpower minister Khurshid Ahmed Shah but cancelled by the government’s press information department.

    Some superior court judges are also facing contempt charges for taking oath under the Provisional Constitution Order of Nov 3, 2007, issued by then president Pervez Musharraf.

    Saturday’s court order quoted a statement of Taj Haider that legislators would take out a rally from the Sindh Assembly building to the Sindh High Court to lodge a protest against what was described as “politically-motivated decisions of the superior judiciary” and that there would be a general strike across Sindh against the “interference of the judiciary in administrative affairs”.

    The order also quoted Mr Haider as saying that the judgment was discriminatory because another person was removed from the office because he was Sindhi.

    Mr Memon was quoted in the notice as alleging that the courts had dual standards as they did not take any action against those who invaded the courts, which was a reference to the Nov 28, 1997, storming of the Supreme Court by PML-N supporters.

    The notices required both the attorney general and Sindh advocate general to inform the court about actions taken to pay compensation to the heirs of the persons killed, murdered or injured and to those whose properties were damaged during the strike.

  2. The Intelligence Bureau also submitted its report and confirmed that on the call of some PPP leaders, strikes were observed throughout Sindh except Matiari, Umar Kot and Thar against the SC judgement.

    According to reports, Taj Haider gave a call to boycott courts, close trade centres, offices, education and other institutions, transport etc. The news was widely televised and published in the electronic and print media.

    Taj Haider had stated: “Legislators would take out rally from Sindh Assembly building to Sindh High Court to lodge protest against politically motivated decision of superior judiciary. They would observe the general strike across the Sindh province against the interference of the judiciary in administrative affairs…the said judgement is discriminatory because another person who belongs to Sindh was removed from his service because he is a Sindhi and the whole party protests against the said decision.”

    While Sharjeel had said: “The courts have dual standards as they did not take any action against those who invaded the courts. Furthermore, tomorrow strike will be held in Sindh and atrocity with Sindh should be stopped. He also stated that it is shameful decision…”

  3. Sharjeel vows to defend his position
    By Asghar Azad

    KARACHI: Sharjeel Inam Memon, In-charge of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Sindh Media Cell, said on Saturday that he was willing to defend his position taken during a strike called over the judgment of the Supreme Court (SC) that declared as illegal the appointment of Syed Deedar Hussain Shah as Chairman National Accountability Bureau.

    This he said while talking to Daily Times here after the issuance of contempt of court notices by the SC to him and PPP Sindh Secretary General Taj Haider.

    Sharjeel said that he was not ashamed of anything thing as he had not committed any misconduct.

    He further said it was on the record that a judge of the honourable SC had already admitted that the hanging Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to death was a judicial murder.

    The MPA said that he respected the law, courts and all other institutions, and had never adopted any attitude that opposed the law, judiciary or any other institution.

    He said a judgement, declared by any honourable court, becomes a public property, so the people may appreciate or criticise it.

    To a query, he said he had still not received any notice issued by the court but he would appear before it. He said it would be decided after consultation between the party and the government on how to face the charge of contempt of the court.

  4. Judges as legislators

    Babar Sattar
    Saturday, March 26, 2011

    The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.

    In ‘Blink’ Malcom Gladwell suggests that human beings generally reach decisions intuitively and instantly upon being confronted with the need to reach them and then come up with explanations rationalising their choices. He calls it the “storytelling problem” where we later create stories to explain the decisions we make or actions we take. Reading the recent rulings of the Supreme Court one gets the sinking feeling that Gladwell might be right.

    The jurisprudential debate over what judges ought to do in courts has largely subsided across the world. It is now agreed that judges do not declare what the law should be, but only what it is. In other words, judges are not legislators or lawmakers, but adjudicators interpreting the text of the law laid out by legislators and stating what the text means.

    When Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr of the US Supreme Court revealed that, “this is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice,” he wasn’t being facetious. He was reiterating the limited scope of authority that a judge wields in a country that incorporates separation of powers through a written constitution.

    But if the rulings of our Supreme Court in Sindh High Court Bar Association vs Federation of Pakistan (challenging the Parliamentary Committee’s disagreement with recommendations of the Judicial Commission regarding appointment of judges) and Shahid Orakzai vs Federation of Pakistan (questioning the legality of Justice Deedar Shah’s appointment as Chairman NAB) are samples to go by, our apex court judges don’t seem to abide by the doctrine of limited judicial authority.

    Zardari-led PPP’s disregard for the mandatory consultation process in appointing the NAB Chairman is unjustifiable. And its contempt for the law and court rulings apparent in the re-nomination of Justice Deedar Shah for the same position after the apex court declared his appointment illegal even more abhorrent.

    But this is not a conversation about who is better: the Supreme Court or the Zardari-led federal government. It is also not about the applicability of outcomes reached by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determines what the law is. In the above cases it has spoken its mind. And until it overrules itself, its words are final and binding. But when it comes to court rulings, what matters more than the instant outcome is judicial reasoning. For such reasoning becomes a precedent, binds subordinate courts and shapes the country’s jurisprudence.

    The Supreme Court being “infallible because it is final” has no room to make mistakes. And yet the legal reasoning in these cases is seriously wanting. It is probably unfair to lump Shahid Orakzai (the Chairman NAB case) with Sindh High Court Bar Association (the judicial appointments’ case). The reasoning and outcome of the latter could deform our doctrines of democracy, separation of powers and limited institutional authority (all still in a state of infancy) and is therefore more troublesome.

    The main reason leading to the outcome of the Chairman NAB appointment case is largely straightforward and logical, and the consequence of its ruling, fairly limited. But the reasoning in both cases provides a peek into the court’s perception of its seemingly unlimited powers and the ‘do-good’ approach in exercising such powers without restraint.

    Let’s get the Chairman NAB case out of the way first. Deedar Shah’s appointment has been declared ultra vires because law required the president to consult with the leader of the opposition before appointing a candidate to the office of Chairman NAB and this mandatory requirement was not meaningfully discharged. This is why Justice Shah’s appointment was illegal. But the court went on to produce other outcomes backed by unconvincing reasons.

    The first is the uncharitable manner in which the possibility of Justice Shah’s reappointment has been eliminated. Subtler, but more dangerous, is the insistence of the court that an administrative role for the chief justice in the process of appointing Chairman NAB must be carved out even though there is no statutory or textual basis for the same.

    The ruling points out that NAB law allows a chairman to serve only one term and prohibits grant of any extension. It then states that as Deedar Shah has already served as Chairman NAB since November 2010, he is now barred from being reappointed. This is circular reasoning at best. Justice Shah has not been removed for misconduct through use of the legal mechanism provided for ouster of Chairman NAB. (Chairman NAB can only be removed from office through the procedure that applies to a judge of the Supreme Court.) He has actually not been removed at all. The court found that Justice Shah was not a legitimate chairman because he was never appointed legally.

    In such case, while holding that Justice Shah’s appointment was ultra vires of the law and invalid, the court should have clarified that his appointment was void ab initio (void right from the start, just the way appointments of PCO judges were held as such).

    Now if Justice Shah was never legally appointed as Chairman NAB, how can his work at NAB for a few months under a mistake of fact (that he was a legitimate chairman) be counted as a term in office disabling him from ever being appointed as Chairman NAB? The ruling acknowledges that Justice Shah is without fault (and sympathises with him). So how can he be condemned as ineligible for a position he might legally qualify for when he has done no wrong?

    Let us hypothetically assume that the leader of the opposition is meaningfully consulted and agrees to support Justice Shah’s appointment as Chairman NAB. According to the court, he can still not be appointed as such and must personally pay for the mistake of the law ministry that processed his invalid appointment in the first place.

    If Justice Shah has a right to be appointed Chairman NAB upon satisfaction of all other legal requirements, how can such right be taken away due to someone else’s fault? Has the Supreme Court just undone ubi jus ibi remedium (‘where there is a right there is a remedy’)? Would the court even have expounded on the legality of Justice Shah’s reappointment had he not been re-nominated before the announcement of the detailed judgment?

    The Zardari-PPP decision to reappoint Justice Shah as Chairman NAB was ridiculous. Thus, as a practical matter the court stretching the law to lay this controversy to rest is quite welcome. But principled determination of legal controversies has no room for expediency. We might be sick of the trickery employed by the Zardari regime to run this country down. But does that allow constitutional courts to replace principled reasoning as a basis of the rulings with crafty strategies to pay a devious regime back in the same coin?

    And then this business of the chief justice being ‘pater familias’ and the lord and saviour of the pitiful multitudes simply refuses to go away, despite much talk about the need for building institutions. The suggestion incorporated in the NRO case and the Harris Steel case has been repeated in the Chairman NAB appointment case: the chief justice should also be consulted before appointing an individual as Chairman NAB.

    Now NAB is an executive agency under the prime minister’s control. Its statute provides that its chairman is to be appointed after consultation between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition; meaning, with bipartisan support. There is absolutely no statutory basis for the chief justice to get involved with the process. And yet our apex court demands such a role. Whence do our judges derive this authority to say what the law ought to be?

    (To be concluded)


  5. Yaar let’s settle this once and for all, make Ramday the Chairman NAB and all will be settled. You will have a PML-N representative as CJP and another as Chairman NAB. After that make Khwaja Sharif the Chief Election Commissioner. That is what they want. Even after that they will firstly lose the March 2012 senate and then March 2013 general elections. InshAllah!!!!

  6. This crazy SOB called Anzar Abbasi may he rot in hell calls all PPP walas as minnows. Ask him if elected people are minnows then what is he????
    read his “report” in the news:

    ISLAMABAD: After extraordinary patience and a long rope of leniency given by the Supreme Court to the PPP government in face of repeated defiance of its judgments, the contempt notices issued to two PPP leaders of Sindh mark the stage where the SC is saying “enough is enough”.
    The day the PPP minnows Taj Haider and Sharjeel Memon spat their venom, ostensibly on the conspiratorial wink of their party boss, to defy the court decision on the chairman NAB, it was generally believed that a contempt of court had been committed.
    Giving a call for a protest strike against the judiciary and its verdict throughout Sindh was equal to crossing all limits and that too by the ruling party with the clear support of the government, which has the first constitutional responsibility to respect and implement court decisions.
    But when the government starts ignoring the Supreme Court’s orders and the ruling party begins openly ridiculing the topmost court and its respected judges, it becomes too serious a trend to be overlooked.
    Contempt of the court is just one aspect. The far more serious repercussion of this trend is the encouragement that mafias and criminal gangs get to further their agendas without any fear of law and justice or anyone holding them accountable.
    The losers in such a situation are the law abiding citizens, the state-institutions and the country. The obvious consequence of ridiculing and showing defiance to court decisions is inviting anarchy and chaos in the society.
    Court decisions could be critically examined but should never be ridiculed and laughed at. Anyone aggrieved by a ruling has the constitutional right to challenge the same before a higher judicial authority or seek a review from the same court. But resorting to strike by a government party is really unheard of. In this particular case, however, it became criminal and highly irresponsible as it resulted into loss of several lives and properties.
    Since December 2009 when the Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision on NRO, the government and certain PPP leaders left no opportunity to confront the superior judiciary either by ridiculing it or refusing to obey its orders.
    In a show of remarkable patience some contempt of court notices were issued but not pursued by the apex court. Instead of limiting themselves, the government and the PPP leaders furthered their aggression against the independent judiciary, which ultimately took the timely decision on Saturday to issue contempt of court notices to Taj Haider and Shirjeel Memon.
    The tone and tenor of the court press release clearly hints at the seriousness of the situation. It even talks of the possible disqualification of Shirjeel, the PPP MPA from Sindh.
    The contempt proceedings would send a clear message to all and sundry that court decisions should not be ignored or ridiculed. Only a few days back the ex-Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqi told me that the leniency of the apex court towards the violators of its decisions and directions was unprecedented. He said: “Now the courts must act and send a few of the violators behind the bars.”
    Being a member of Jang Group and an observer of certain things happening in respect of the Geo Super, one is astonished to know how daringly an ordinary official body like Pemra and cable operators can jointly hinder the broadcast of World Cup on Geo Super despite the clear decision and directions of the superior judiciary. These are obviously dangerous trends and should not be tolerated at all.
    Only recently, The News and Jang ran a story filed by Usman Manzoor reflecting on the 15 cases in the past 14 months in which the government defied court directions. From the implementation of the NRO judgment to the fair investigations into the corruption scams like Haj fraud, NICL swindle, Pakistan Steel’s plunder, Bank of Punjab scandal, re-employment fraud, the Supreme Court has been repeatedly passing orders, giving directions, and seeking changes, but the government remained arrogant and adamant to show disrespect to the top most judicial body of the country.
    At times, SC was heard frustratingly complaining that its orders are not being implemented. On one occasion, honourable Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had to ask Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq as to how many court orders had not been obeyed. The attorney general could not count. He would perhaps not know that how many attorney generals, law secretaries and other officials had to resign because of the government’s non-seriousness towards the implementation of the court decisions.
    Several times, the government was even grilled, but it remained purposely and deliberately defiant. In almost every major corruption scandal and in the NRO case too, the government has tried to defy the Supreme Court’s orders. Will this trend continue after the contempt notices to the PPP leaders will now have to be seen?

  7. “Jupiter .. Thou are angry therefore thou are wrong!”
    CJ IMC is now touching the lowest point in his career.. one thing which makes me sad is that establishment uses individuals like IMC as toilet papers and yet history gives them chance to refuse to become a toilet paper but they never avail such opportunity. Despite working with the Dom (Kyani) against mad dictator, CJ IMC had a genuine chance to break free himself from the clutches of establishment after his restoration. He could have ensured that Kyani and Pasha does not get the extension by blackmailing U.S and government. He could have focused on the better justice in lower courts and could have easily stayed on the top and honorable in the eyes of people of Pakistan. But he preferred to stay at the level of his brothers Abdul Hamid Dogar and Ramday…
    I loved when Abdul Hamid Dogar’s lawyer submitted the apologies and IMC accepted it immediately :)…

  8. Taj Haider is one of the very sane voices in the political sphere, his words are very thoughtful and actions are very commendable. Taj Haider was one of the front leaders in the movement against the mad dictator. CJ IMC could not muster the courage to issue contempt notice to Kyani and his cronies but he had the audacity to issue the contempt notice Taj Haider… shameful and disgusting!!!

  9. Between us that woman in the PS looks suspicious to me. It seems she is acting and she changes her stances by saying her brother was arrested and then accuse SHO of raping her sister.

  10. Kana Dijal is ruling the country with judicial martial law.
    All islamofascists are his foot soldiers. These are the one who showered Qadri & now rhey are showeing Kana Dijal.

  11. In the Bible, Satan is referred to as the Lord of the flies, which is such an appropriate descriptive for our own Chief.

  12. why no contempt notice to hamid gul who after raymond davis release used so harsh words for judiciary and Iftikhar choudry in Kshif abbasi and other shows.Khawaja saad rafiq said in NEWSBEAT on SAMMA TV that they dont accept judiciary’ decision about raymond davis. so many anchors showed disapointment with judiciary in raymond davis case and critisized the decsion of court.Suo motos and contempt of court are only for ppp.Iftikhar choudry become a party against ppp.i think ppp members should take all those tapes of people who critisized judiciary after raymond davis case to SC and asked the judges why no contempt notices to those people.

  13. PPP sabse phatto jamat hai, FBR waalon ko peechay lagao iin judges kay, kyun dartey ho bhie tum log khud corrupt aur darpok ho, jis ki wajah se idaray media aur judiciary ke agay kamzoor ho rahey hain.

  14. Asma shows concern over SC verdicts By Our Staff Reporter | From the Newspaper

    LAHORE, March 29: Supreme Court Bar Association President Asma Jahangir has expressed reservations over two recent judgements by the apex court through which the appointment of Justice Deedar Shah (retired) as NAB chairman was declared unconstitutional and the parliamentary committee decision of not giving extension to six additional judges of high courts was set aside.

    At a press briefing here on Tuesday, she said these judgements reflected “judicial dictatorship and a lack of tolerance against other democratic institutions”.

    Ms Jahangir said she agreed with the Deedar Shah verdict to the extent where it ruled for appointment of NAB chairman through consensus-oriented meaningful consultation between the leader of the house and the leader of the opposition. However she criticised the verdict for closing the door for Mr Shah’s reappointment even through due process. In her opinion Justice Deedar Shah could be reappointed if all rules and procedure of the appointment were fulfilled.The SCBA president was not satisfied with the decision in as much as it provided for the chief justice of Pakistan to decide the matter if the leaders of the house and opposition were at dispute over the appointment. She said this means the complete authority to make appointment would go to the CJP discarding parliament. She said the government should go for a review petition in this case.

    “Being the SCBA president, I will point out what is constitutionally right and it’s up to the people to decide,” Ms Jahangir said.

    She claimed that many lawyers also had reservations on the SC judgements but they avoided open criticism for one reason or another.

    She urged the parliament to finalise and approve the amended accountability law without further delay.

    About the verdict through which the SC had set aside the Parliamentary Committee’s decision against extension to the services of six additional judges of Lahore and Sindh high courts, Ms Jahangir said the court indirectly decided the pending matter on 18th and 19th constitutional amendments and one of the four members on the bench highlighted this fact in his dissenting note.

    She said the decision completely ended the role of the parliamentary committee by denying it the right to disagree with the recommendations of the Judicial Commission. She questioned the existence of a parliamentary committee that did not have the power to take independent decisions.

    Ms Jahangir pointed out the reservations expressed by the chief justices of the high courts about the moral authority of the six additional judges in question.Ms Jahangir said that at the commission level appointment of judges had to be initiated through the CJP which in her view was contrary to the concept of independence of judiciary wherein independent opinion of every judge commanded weight and regard.She had an issue with the composition of the judicial commission, citing what she called a lack of representation from Sindh. Also on her list of concern was the confirmation of judge of the Peshawar High Court only a few months before he was to retire.The bar president concluded the briefing by calling for greater accountability in the judicial system.

  15. One question that should be asked and is being ignored “who aired the news” and CJ “orders” government to find out about the news According to a notification released by the SC, directors of three local TV channels and Chairman Pemra, Mushtaq Ahmed, were informed by a notice to be present at the hearing. The full court will only do the hearings of judges’ restoration notification on 18th October. While other benches will proceed with their normal hearings. -DawnNews SC hearing for restoration notification on 18 Oct Saturday, 16 Oct, 2010

  16. Pre-emptive strike Published: October 15, 2010

    The following is the text of the Supreme Court’s late night press release issued by Additional Registrar Sajid Mehmood Qazi:

    “As per reports telecast tonight on several TV Channels including AAJ, GEO & ARY, alleging that the Government is considering to withdraw the notification/executive order dated 16.03.2009 of restoration of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and other Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and Chief Justices/Judges of High Courts. Some newspapers have already reported this issue as well. Earlier on, few months ago, a similar statement was made by one of the high constitutional office holders in the Parliament.

    “As the news item was flashed by other TV channels, some channels have also telecast denial today (14.10.2010) from the Government, saying that there is no truth behind the said news.

  17. Asma slams ‘judicial dictatorship’
    Published: March 30, 2011

    SCBA says judiciary under Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is becoming a judicial dictatorship.
    Supreme Court Bar Association President Asma Jahangir has said the judiciary under Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is becoming a judicial dictatorship, as reflected in the Supreme Court’s orders on the National Accountability Bureau chairman and judges’ extension cases.
    The judiciary is reaching for powers that belong to parliament, Jahangir told reporters on Tuesday. Referring to the removal of Deedar Hussain Shah as NAB chairman, she said the SC had ruled that the chief justice must be consulted on the appointment.
    “That means absolute authority to make the appointment will go the CJP, not the the parliament, which is a serious matter,” she said.
    Jahangir said she agreed that the appointment should be made after consultations, but questioned how Shah could be disqualified from being reappointed to the post. “Procedural flaws in an appointment do not disqualify a person,” she said.
    She said the SC decision on the extension of six additional judges rejected by the parliamentary committee on the appointment of judges had made the committee redundant.
    Published in The Express Tribune, March 30th, 2011.