Qazi Anwar’s vilification crusade against politicians
Explicit or implicit supporters of military dictatorship in Pakistan, who usually lack significant vote bank in masses and dance to the tunes of right wing establishment, often criticise politicians holding them as solely and predominantly responsible for Pakistan’s failures and miseries as a nation and as a society.
Recently, Qazi Muhammad Anwar, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, termed parliamentarians as smugglers and thieves. He uttered these words before his historical meeting with Mian Nawaz Sharif after which Mr Sharif declared his U-turn on the Constitutional Package. This is what Qazi Anwar said:
Smugglers in Parliament cannot appoint judges
Updated at: 1313 PST, Saturday, March 27, 2010QUETTA: President of Supreme Court Bar Association Qazi Muhammed Anwar said the Parliament cannot usurp the freedom of the judiciary, Geo News reported Saturday.
Addressing lawyers at District Katchehry here, he said the judiciary is free to function under the Constitution and nobody including Parliament would be allowed to restrict its independence.
Qazi continued the smugglers sitting at the Parliament could not be allowed the power to appoint judges, adding lawyers will correct themselves if all the institutions are back on the right path. It is unthinkable under the Constitution to have a criminal as President of the state, as President needs to be free from all crimes including corruption under Article-248 of the Constitution, he maintained.Source: Geo News
There was apparently severe reaction and criticism on Qazi Anwar’s statement in the National Assembly as well as in various Provincial Assemblies. For example, the following reaction in the Senate of Pakistan:
Privilege motion referred to Senate body
Muhammad ArshadIslamabad —The Upper House of the Parliament on Monday referred a privilege motion against President Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Qazi Anwar over his derogatory remarks about the parliamentarians to the concerned standing committee.
Taking strong note of the reported statement of Qazi Anwar in which he declared parliamentarians as smugglers and thieves, Senator Jamal Khan Leghari while speaking on a point of order said that Qazi Anwar had humiliated and insulted parliament and committed breach of privilege of the House.
He demanded of the Chairman to issue ruling against Qazi Anwar as he had brought bad name to parliament, judiciary and Supreme Court.
ANP leader Zahid Khan said that parliament did not comprise on thieves and smugglers so statement of Qazi Anwar was grave disrespect to dignity and honour of this august house. He demanded of the chair to take exception of the issue as it was seriously dangerous for parliament and the Supreme Court simultaneously. He asked Qazi Anwar to point out smugglers and thieves from the parliament House.
Senator Maula Bakhash termed the statement of Qazi Anwar was a conspiracy to put institutions in conflict with each other. He urged judiciary and Supreme Court to take strong note of the statement as such statements could cause institutional confrontation. Senators started raising voices at the same time in the favour of parliament and condemnation of the statement Qazi Anwar and demanded of the chair to refer the matter of breach of privilege to the concerned standing committee. At this Chairman Senate Farooq Hamid Naek said that matter could be referred to the concerned committee after motion was tabled properly and in black and white with the sense of the House.
It was stated that Qazi Anwar had been a parliamentarian and he (Qazi) himself was charged for being convict during his election and a petition in this regard was still pending in the court. At this Jamal Khan Leghari moved privilege motion signed by 17 Senators by reading out the text which stated that statement by SCBA President Qazi Anwar was breach of privilege of the entire House in which he said parliamentarians as thieves and smugglers.
The Chairman asked the Leader of the House whether government opposed it or not, however, Nayyar Hussain Bokhari did not oppose and the Chairman then referred to the concerned standing committee for further discussion. Source: Pak Observer
Here is how the lower house (National Assembly) reacted:
The statement of President Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Qazi Anwar in which he labelled the parliamentarians as “smugglers” made the legislators protest strongly against these remarks in the National Assembly and urged the House to move a joint privilege motion against these remarks.
Raising the issue on a point of order on Monday, PML-Q legislator Waqas Akram Sheikh contended that the SCBA president had declared all the parliamentarians “thieves and smugglers” without any evidence and thus insulted parliament that is a supreme body.
He proposed for a joint privilege motion of the House against such remarks so that no body could level charges against parliamentarians without any evidence.PML-N legislator Khawaja Saad Rafiq declared the SCBA president as an unbalanced person, who should not be taken seriously yet he opposed any motion against him.
But PPP legislator Nadeem Afzal Gondal, who supported Sheikh Waqas Akram’s view of presenting the joint privilege motion against the SCBA president’s remarks, at the same expressed the desire that some anchor persons and a section of the media should also be included in it.
Source: Pak Tribune
There was also a reaction witnessed in the Sindh Assembly:
MPAs take strong exception to SCBA president’s comment
Tuesday, March 30, 2010Karachi: Sindh Assembly members on Monday took strong exception to the statement of President Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Qazi Anwar and termed it an insult to the august house.
PPP’s parliamentary leader Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq said that the SCBA president had breached the privilege of legislators by saying that “smugglers and rogues” were sitting in the parliament. He condemned such attitude of the leader of lawyers’ body, saying that the lawyers were supposed to follow their code of conduct, which calls for using cautious language and avoiding allegations. He said that good and bad people happen to be everywhere but it was not advisable to generalize the matter.
Minister for Law Mohammed Ayaz Soomro said that parliament was a supreme body that makes the constitution. MQM’s Shoaib Bukhari said that Qazi Anwar has “belittled” his stature by using such awkward language. He said that Supreme Court exists because of parliament, adding, if the lawyers continued this attitude the people might stop respecting them.
Speaker Nisar Ahmed Khuhro observed that the legislators could move a privilege motion to summon the SCBA president before the PA body.
Source: The News
Despite all these protests in various parts of the parliament, the acting president of SCBA criticized the parliamentarians who are demanding legal action against Qazi Anwar.
SCBA defends Qazi’s statement against legislators
Wednesday, 31 Mar, 2010QUETTA: Acting President Supreme Court Bar Association Amanullah Kanrani has defended the statement of the Bar President Qazi Anwar about the parliamentarians and said that he has exposed the real face of these legislators.
Speaking at a news conference in Quetta, he said TV talk shows and newspapers are replete with serious allegations of the parliamentarians against one another.
He criticized the parliamentarians who are demanding legal action against Qazi Anwar for his statement against them.
He questioned whether the parliamentarians were really proud of their autonomy and why they do not stop the US drone attacks in Pakistan and get Dr Aafia released from American detention.
He underlined the need for the full implementation of the 16 December 2009 judgment of the Supreme Court and termed the PML-N’s suggestion of formation of five-member judicial commission for appointment of judges in apex court as feasible and suitable.—DawnNews
Source: Dawn
In the words of Farrukh Khan Pitafi:
Politicians, we know, are among the most criticised species in this country. Mind you, it was an elected prime minister who was hanged, not any civil, military or judicial bureaucrat. And yet Mian saab, despite being a politician himself, has found allies in Qazi Anwar who has publicly called all parliamentarians smugglers, waderas and fake degree holders. Mind you, I am no fan of Jamshed Dasti; actually I have been one of his foremost critics, but the way he was treated [by the Supreme Court] has left a bad taste in my mouth.
The issue of vilification of parliamentarians has also been taken up in detail by Mr I. A. Rehman in his article in Dawn on 1 April 2010. We provide below an excerpt of Mr Rehman’s article which might be of interest to the LUBP readers:
The chief of the lawyers’ association, who is respected widely for his white hair, has questioned the notion of parliament’s supremacy and challenged anyone to show where this idea is mentioned in the constitution. One wonders how he has missed the third line of the sacred Objectives Resolution which says the chosen representatives of the people are the only source of the state’s power and authority.
Everybody knows that the Supreme Court Bar cannot be condemned for the sins of its past presidents who had been removed/made to resign from high judicial office for misconduct. The whole parliament cannot be castigated for the faults of a few or many weaklings among its members. Likewise anyone who tries to pass a judgment on the judiciary because a couple of senior judges were removed by the Supreme Judicial Council will surely be declared guilty of serious mischief.
The unwise friends (self-styled) of the judiciary who are playing up the case of parliamentarians’ fake degrees need to be reminded that failure to decide the madressah degrees case for five years is a dark blot on the fair name of the judiciary. The election of over 50 legislators was challenged in the Supreme Court soon after the 2002 election. Many of the respondents refused to answer summons and issued statements in defiance of the court. They were not hauled up for contempt; they were not even chastised. Many stories of degrees having been bought for a few hundred rupees were common. Ultimately the petition became infructuous as new elections had been held. The people’s expectation of a finding on the election of people who were ineligible remained unrealised.
One may also point out that in India impeachment by parliament is the only way to remove a judge for corruption/misconduct. The provision has been criticised on several grounds but never on the ground that many of the MPs have a criminal record (which may be true).
The upshot of the whole discussion is that it is time to stop vilifying parliament and other institutions of democratic governance. If the practice of abusing parliamentarians left, right and centre, started by authoritarian rulers, continues the transition to democracy will never be completed. The parliamentarians are no angels — nor are angels visible anywhere else — but they are entitled to respect as representatives elected by the people.
As democratic traditions take root the people will have possibilities of electing better men and women to represent them and weed out the black sheep among them. That is the only legitimate means of dealing with legislators unworthy of people’s trust.
Update:
Apparently, fearful of being summoned in the parliament to explain his statement, Qazi Anwar has decided to eat (amend) his words. Instead of plainly admitting his mistake and seeking an apology, he has proven himself to be a true hypocrite (munafiq), a trait of all democracy haters and Taliban lovers:
I did not call MPs ‘smugglers’, says Qazi Anwar
ISLAMABAD: I did not call parliamentarians ‘smugglers’ during my press conference in Quetta last week, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Qazi Anwar said on Wednesday. He said this while addressing a press conference at the Supreme Court premises. Qazi said he never called the parliamentarians smugglers and wanted to say that smugglers could not be a part of parliament. The SCBA president said that his statement was twisted and he was severely criticised by the lawmakers in the National Assembly, Senate and provincial assemblies. app
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\04\01\story_1-4-2010_pg7_28
Including the fateful press conference of Thursday, Nawaz has so far addressed three conferences in a bid to clear his party’s stance in the matter. And he has claimed that he is acting in “supreme national interest” – a phrase seldom used by political leaders but frequently articulated by military dictators.
Nawaz’s passing remark that “you don’t know what I know” – addressed to his party members and overheard and reported by the media – has also made the situation murkier: the comment contradicts the repeated claim of the former prime minister, at the behest of the military establishment, that he is trying to clear the air and should not be blamed for sabotaging the process to put the country on the path of constitutionalism.
While the PML-N chief’s recent statements have brought the constitutional reforms committee back to square one, Supreme Court Bar Association President Qazi Anwar’s statement that “smugglers in parliament” could not be given the authority to appoint judges reflects the real intent of the mindset operating against a parliament struggling to establish its supreme authority over all other state institutions.
It is no more a secret that an SCBA delegation – led by Qazi Anwar – met the PML-N chief with an agenda. Nawaz assured the delegation of his support, and said he would never let the judiciary be undermined by parliament – the ‘mother’ of all institutions in a democracy.
If the increasing hobnobbing between the PML-N and the Qazi Anwar-led legal fraternity needs proof, it would be suffice to state here that the PML-N chief is yet to condemn Qazi’s statement on parliamentarians, while everybody else – in the Senate
and the National Assembly – has squarely censured
the statement.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\03\31\story_31-3-2010_pg7_30
Thanks for sharing this wonderful article
Good Old Day of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry [During Martial Law of General Musharraf] Courtesy Dawn Wire Service [Complete PCO Bench] Read how Martial Law was Justified by the Judges and Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was part of the bench:
Politicians in power try to be dictators, says CJ Bureau Report [ DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 4 March 2000 Issue : 06/10
http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/mar04.html
ISLAMABAD, March 1: The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Irshad Hasan Khan, on Wednesday observed that when the politicians are in power, they try to become dictators but when they are out of power, they become champions of the rule of law.
Presiding over a 12-member bench seized of the seven petitions challenging the military takeover, the chief justice directed the attorney general to provide details of the expenditure on holding elections, including the expenses made by the candidates on their election campaigns. The Supreme Court announced that it would decide the issue of maintainability and merits of the case simultaneously. The chief justice said the court had entertained the petitions. The bench started regular hearing of the petitions on Wednesday. The court first took up the petition of Syed Zafar Ali Shah,
suspended MNA of PML from Islamabad. The representative petition of PML would be taken next and Khalid Anwer would argue the case on behalf of the party.
Other petitions before the court are of Syed Imtiaz Hussain Bukhari, challenging the PCO; Fazal Ellahi Siddiqui, challenging the PCO; Shahid Orakzai, seeking restoration of Senate, office of speakers and provincial assemblies; Al-Jehad Trust, seeking restoration of Constitution to the extent of judiciary; and Syed Iqbal Haider of MWM, seeking validation of PCO. The bench consisted of Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, Justice Mohammad Bashir Jehangiri, Justice Sheikh Ijaz Nisar, Justice Abdur Rehman Khan, Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, Justice Chaudhry Mohammad Arif,
Justice Munir A. Sheikh, Justice Rashid Aziz Khan, Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Justice Qazi Mohammad Farooq and Justice Rana Bhagwandas.
The chief justice made it clear at the outset that the counsels should try to be relevant and unnecessary repetition of arguments should be avoided. He said the whole work of the court was suspended due to the present case. Chaudhry Farooq, the counsel of Mr Shah, said that on the last hearing the petitioner had apprehended that the judges of the court would be asked to take fresh oath under the PCO and his apprehensions proved to be true.
He said the PCO (1) of 1999 and subsequent orders were unconstitutional, having no force of law.
The chief justice asked the parties to avoid mud-slinging, and added that: “we will perform our function without intimidation.” He observed that the bar and the bench were integral part of the chariot of justice. He said his effort was to save the system and referred to the decisions of the Chief Justices Committee.
The counsel said: “Pakistan was a gift of our forefathers, but unfortunately the rule of law had been interrupted at regular intervals. In its total life, Pakistan had suffered military rule for 30 long years”.
He said the government in its reply to the petitions had said that the elections of Feb 3, 1997, were farce. The elections in which PML obtained heavy mandate were monitored by the observers across the globe, he said, and added the armed forces were employed to supervize the elections. On the court’s query, Barrister Khalid Anwar stated that 36 per cent of voters used their right of franchise in the 1997 elections.
Chaudhry Farooq said if the government of Khawaja Nazimuddin would not have been dismissed, the fate of Pakistan would have been different. He said Pakistan was created with the force of vote and not through any military operation. “Both citizens and soldiers are subject to Constitution alike.”
Referring to Article 6 of the Constitution, he said abrogating the Constitution was treachery with the country. When he stated that the respondents had not replied to the
Politicians in power try to be dictators: CJ challenge he raised in the petition, the chief justice observed that the counsel was trying to be hyper technical. The CJ made it clear to the counsel that notice of the case to the chief of the army staff was there.
The counsel said he was firm believer that the Kafir (infidel) could not be a friend of Muslim and Hindus being Kafir could not be trusted. When the counsel referred to a judgment from the Indian jurisdiction, the court asked him not to cite Indian judgments in the present case. When the counsel started reading an old judgment from Pakistani
jurisdiction, the chief justice asked the counsel to first read the speech of the chief executive in which he had spelt out the reasons which forced him to come into power.
The counsel was still reading the speech of Gen Musharraf when the court rose to assemble again on Thursday (March 2).
JUDICIARY UNDER MARTIAL LAW
Seniority of Chief Justices determined Bureau Report [ DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 4 March 2000 Issue : 06/10 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/mar04.html
ISLAMABAD, Feb 28: The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Irshad Hasan Khan, on Monday constituted the Supreme Judicial Council, and determined the seniority of the chief justices of the high courts. According to an order passed by the chief justice in his
administrative capacity, the Supreme Judicial Council had been constituted. The members of the council are: Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan (chairman), Justice Mohammad Bashir Jehangiri, Justice Sheikh Ijaz Nisar, Justice Mian Mohammad Ajmal, and Justice Mian Allah Nawaz.
Only four cases were referred to the council in the last 52 years. The last case of the Lahore High Court judge, Justice Shiekh Shaukat, was referred about two decades ago. According to a press release issued by the Supreme Court, the chief justice has institutionalized the decision-making process relating to administrative matters and decentralized his powers. Justice Bashir Jehangiri, senior judge of the Supreme Court, has been delegated financial powers of the chief justice to sanction expenditure up to Rs30,000. Justice Jehangiri would assist the chief justice in matters relating to the administration of the Supreme Court and proposals for improving and strengthening the administration of justice.
Other judges of the Supreme Court are also delegated different duties, such as chairmen of different committees and members of the universities’ syndicates. The chief justice also determined the inter seniority of the chief justices of high courts. They are (seniority wise): Justice Mian Mohammad Ajmal, chief justice of the Peshawar High Court; Justice Mian Allah Nawaz, chief justice of the Lahore High Court; Justice Syed Deedar Hussain, chief justice of the Sindh High Court; and Justice Javed Iqbal, chief justice of the Balochistan High Court.
POWERS DECENTRALIZED: The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr. Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, has taken several steps to decentralise his powers and institutionalise decision making relating to administration to further improve performance and smooth functioning of the judiciary, adds APP.
He has delegated his powers to the following judges for smooth functioning of courts.
1- Mr. Justice Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, Senior Puisne Judge: (i) Has been delegated financial powers of the Chief Justice to sanction expenditure upto Rs. 30,000/- (ii) To assist the Chief Justice in matters relating to the administration of the SC and proposals for improving and strengthening the system of administration of justice.
2- Mr. Justice Sheikh Ijaz Nisar:
(i) Chairman, Building Committee at Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Islamabad.
(ii) Chairman, Federal Review Board
3- Mr. Justice Abdur Rehman Khan:
(i) Chairman, Disciplinary Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council
(ii) Member, Building Committee of Peshawar Building
(iii) Judge-in-charge Complaints
4- Mr. Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad:
(i) Member, Syndicate of the Quaid-i-Azam University
(ii) Member, Building Committee at Islamabad
(iii) Judge-in-charge of Computers
(iv) Member, Federal Review Board
(v) Member, Lahore Building Committee
Continued on Page 11
5- Mr. Justice Chaudhry Muhammad Arif:
(i) Judge-in-Charge, Federal Judicial Academy
(ii) Judge-in-charge of the Library
(iii) Chairman of the Library Committee 6- Mr. Justice Munir A Sheikh:
(i) Judge-in-charge of Pakistan Law Commission regarding initiation of proposals for law reform.
(ii) Chairman, Enrolment Committee of Pakistan Bar Council.
(iii) Judge-in-charge for Welfare of retired Judges in
Lahore/Islamabad
(iv) Chairman, Election Tribunal, Pakistan Bar Council
7- Mr. Justice Rashid Aziz Khan:
(i) Member, Executive Council of the Allama Iqbal Open University
(ii) Member, Building Committee at Lahore
(iii) Chairman, Disciplinary Tribunal of the Pakistan Bar
Council 8- Mr. Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui:
(i) Judge-in-charge for Welfare of retired Judges in Karachi
(ii) Member of the Building Committee at Karachi
9- Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry:
Judge-in-charge for Affairs of Staff Welfare
10- Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq:
Judge-in-charge for Welfare of retired Judges in Peshawar
11- Mr. Justice Rana Bhagwandas:
Member of the Library Committee.
A political conviction: counsel Rafaqat Ali DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 17 March 2001 Issue : 07/11 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2001/mar1701.html
ISLAMABAD, March 16: Raja Anwar, counsel for Benazir Bhutto, on Friday argued that his client was convicted only because Nawaz Sharif, the then prime minister, wanted her to leave politics. Addressing a seven-member SC bench, hearing appeals of Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari against their conviction, Raja Anwar argued that the Ehtesab Bench, comprising Justice Malik Qayyum and Justice
Najmul Hasan Kazmi, had convicted his client on the basis of documents which were inadmissible.
The process of awarding pre-shipment inspection contract which was set in motion in 1992 during the Nawaz Sharif government, culminated in 1994, the counsel said.
The counsel said there was no violation of Financial Rules of the Government of Pakistan in the award of tenders. He said tenders could only be rejected after assigning any reasons in writing. When he referred to rule 90 of Pakistan’s Financial Rules, Justice Bashir Jehangiri observed that in Pakistan every contract was
awarded in violation of rules. At the end of every tender notice it was written that the competent authority reserved the right to reject the bids without assigning any reason.
He said his client did not grant the contract, rather it approved it. The contract was awarded by Nawaz Sharif who had issued letter of intent before he was removed from office. The seven-member bench consists of Justice Bashir Jehangiri, Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, Justice Munir A. Sheikh, Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Justice Qazi Mohammad Farooq, and Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar.
Responding to court’s question about Jens Schlegelmilch’s stay in Islamabad in Aug 1994, Raja Anwer said that there was nothing on record to show that the alleged frontman of Asif Zardari, Jens Schlegelmilch, met Benazir Bhutto.
Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui observed whether it was possible for any official to investigate the sitting prime minister, the counsel said that his client was not prime minister at the time when investigations were being conducted.
On conclusion of the proceedings on Friday, the court asked Raja Anwer to conclude his arguments by Monday as many other cases are suffering because of lengthy hearing of the case. The counsel, who had earlier indicated that he would conclude by Friday, said that he needed at least one more day to conclude his arguments.
Raja Anwer assured the court that he would conclude his arguments by Monday next. The court will resume hearing on Monday, March 19.
SC orders retrial of Benazir, Asif Rafaqat Ali DAWN WIRE SERVICE
Week Ending : 07 April 2001 Issue : 07/14 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2001/apr0701.html
ISLAMABAD, April 6: The Supreme Court on Friday set aside corruption convictions awarded by the LHC’s Ehtesab bench to Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari, and ordered a retrial of the case. In a short order, the seven-member bench accepted the appeals of Ms Bhutto and Mr Zardari against the 1999 conviction. The detailed
judgment would be announced later. The former prime minister and the suspended senator had requested the apex court to acquit them honourably.
Justice Bashir Jehangiri, presiding judge of the bench, announced the verdict at 10.50am: “Reason to be recorded later in the detailed judgment, we accept the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment recording conviction against and awarding sentences to the appellants, and send the case to a court of competent jurisdiction for retrial.” On April 15, 1999, an Ehtesab bench consisting of Justice Malik Qayyum and Najmul Kazmi of the Lahore High Court had convicted Ms Bhutto and Mr Zardari. They were sentenced to undergo five years’ simple imprisonment each, and pay $8.6 million fine each. The Ehtesab bench had ordered their disqualification as members of parliament for five years, and forfeiture of their property made with money acquired through corruption.
The Ehtesab bench had held that the pre-shipment inspection contract to the Swiss company, SGS, had been awarded by the former prime minister “alone” at the behest and abetment with Mr Zardari. The prosecution case was that the contract had been awarded in consideration of 6 per cent commission of the total amount received
by the SGS from the government of Pakistan. The prosecution had alleged that the commission had been paid to an offshore company, Bomer Finance Inc., owned by Mr Zardari through his fiduciary agent Jens Schlegelmilch. The ultimate beneficiaries
of the commission were Mr Zardari and Ms Bhutto, according to prosecution.
Farooq Hameed Naek, counsel for appellants, said after the judgment: “I am satisfied … but not happy. I was expecting honourable acquittal but this is the court’s judgment.”
The military government had inherited the case from the PML government and defended the judgment vehemently, spending over Rs10 million in legal fees and other expenses. The Supreme Court bench consisted of Justice Bashir Jehangiri,
Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmed, Justice Munir A. Sheikh, Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Justice Qazi Mohammad Farooq, and Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar.
I strongly agree with Qazi Anwar, President SCBA. Most of our parliamentarians are either smugglers or knowingly and intentionally talking benefit of smuggling. One simple example is that most of them have been using non-duty paid cars. Paying not import duty is smuggling.
But there is one big problem and that these Very Smugglers restored the Judiciary of a Pirate through an Order signed by A thief ZARDARI.
The passage of the 18th Amendment Bill in the National Assembly was something to celebrate but the way some judicial stalwarts have reacted to it has shocked the nation. Apparently, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Qazi Anwar is not happy about the procedure of judges’ appointment as per the 18th Amendment Bill. He said that parliament has no right to appoint judges and it should not tread into the judiciary’s ambit and scope.I first heard about Qazi Anwar when he suddenly popped up to declare a general strike of Lawyers to get the NRO judgment implemented. His pathetic attempt was defeated. I thought at the time “not another Jamaatia Right winger as the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association”. Yesterday Qazi Anwar allegedly met Nawaz Sharif, the leader of the PML-N, and a few hours later the shit hit the fan.This is the same person who first labeled parliamentarians criminals and smugglers, among other things, and later backtracked on his words by taking the usual ‘my words taken out of context’ stance.The nation is celebrating parliament’s supremacy while these so-called custodians of justice are unhappy about it. Sad indeed!. The people like Qazi Anwar always played double role, indeed, hindering supremacy of Parliament means to support dictatorship. Such black sheep always hindered democratic process. His statement reveals that he is not happy with abolition of dictatorial amendments, which shows his sympathies.