File photo of Raoof Hasan
The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) on Wednesday accused Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa of differing with his brother judges on the alleged meddling of intelligence agencies in judicial affairs, and called on him to disassociate from the bench hearing a suo motu case on a letter penned by six judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
While seeking the CJP’s recusal, the party also demanded the formation of a full bench to hear the matter on a daily basis, with spokesperson Raoof Hasan claiming the issue could only be addressed through punitive actions for anyone meddling in judicial matters. Addressing a press conference with former Gilgit-Baltistan chief minister Khalid Khursheed and PTI core committee member Abuzar Salman Niazi, he recalled that six judges of the IHC had written to the Supreme Judicial Council to resolve the issue of meddling. Rather than resolving the situation independently, he alleged, the CJP had referred it to the executive, asking Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to form a commission to probe it.
Claiming the prime minister and operatives of intelligence agencies were among those implicated in the case, he alleged that allowing them to probe the matter was a “crime.” He also referred to the CJP observing that there was no meddling in the Supreme Court since he assumed the top office, claiming even the general public could see the apparent meddling.
Hasan maintained the IHC judges’ letter and the responses submitted to the Supreme Court by all high courts were an “indictment” of the executive and accused the CJP of “fighting against the entire judiciary” by not resolving the matter. Echoing remarks of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, he said the apex court should take tangible and practical measures to erect a firewall against meddling in judicial affairs.
Niazi, meanwhile, emphasized there could be no compromise on judicial independence, warning any tampering with the judicial process could directly impact an individual’s right to access to justice. He said judicial overview maintained a check on the executive to ensure it did not violate the Constitution. He also regretted that petitions filed by the PTI over the state response to the May 9 riots were still pending hearing.
Referring to rumors of a move to extend the tenure of a CJP, he said this would require a constitutional amendment. He claimed the PTI’s petition seeking its share in reserved seats remained unheard because if the party received such seats, it would deny the ruling coalition the numbers required to amend the Constitution. In such situation, he questioned how the PTI could expect justice from the CJP.