Adil Najam
In a rather shocking move, the President, Gen. Perzez Musharraf just dismissed the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry for alleged “misuse of authority.”
According to a breaking news segment at The News:
The president has submitted a case against Chaudhry to the Supreme Judicial Council. Musharraf had received “numerous complaints and serious allegations for misconduct, misuse of authority and actions prejudicial to the dignity of office of the chief justice of Pakistan,” and Chaudhry had been unable to give a satisfactory explanation, sources said. The report did not specify what he was accused of. The council is a panel of top Pakistani judges that adjudicates cases brought against serving judges and will decide whether the charges against Chaudhry merit his formal dismissal and whether he should be prosecuted.
Basing their story on the Associated Press of Pakistan, the BBC reports further:
Mr Chaudhry was summoned to explain himself to Gen Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. His case was then referred to the Supreme Judicial Council which will decide if Mr Chaudhry should be prosecuted.
The move has shocked many, but signs of its coming can now be identified in hindsight. Mr. Chaudhry had served as the Chief Justice since 2005 and, on occasion, had taken steps that had irked the power structure in Pakistan.
According to a Khaleej Times report, for example:
Last June, the Supreme Court rejected a government move to sell 75 percent of state-owned Pakistan Steel Mills to a Saudi-Russian-Pakistani consortium for 21.7 billion rupees ($362 million). Mill workers claimed it was greatly undervalued. Also, Chaudhry has heard a landmark case brought by relatives of dozens of people believed taken into secret custody by Pakistani intelligence agencies. The chief justice has pressed the government to provide information on the detainees whereabouts. Talat Masood, a political analyst, said the removal of Chaudhry demonstrated the power of the military and suggested that Musharraf’s government wanted to have a “pliable judiciary” ahead of parliamentary elections expected later this year. Musharraf, who took power in a bloodless coup in 1999, is widely expected to seek another five-year term as president from parliament this fall.
Recently, an open letter from Advocate Naeem Bokhari addressed to the Chief Justice and making a number of allegations against him – some personal – has been circulating on the internet extensively. Over the last week, I received probably two dozen emails with that letter in it (many from our readers, and one from my mother!). It seems to have created a stir. Many readers have been writing that we do a post on that letter. I had not done so, just because the letter was a little puzzling to me and its motivations were not clear. I wondered also if there were hints of personal rivalries or issues. On the other hand it was a well-written and seemingly sincere letter from a person of known integrity. In retrospect, the way the letter ended was prophetic:
My Lord, this communication may anger you and you are in any case prone to get angry in a flash, but do reflect upon it. Perhaps you are not cognizant of what your brother judges feel and say about you. My Lord, before a rebellion arises among your brother judges (as in the case of Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah), before the Bar stands up collectively and before the entire matter is placed before the Supreme Judicial Council, there may be time to change and make amends. I hope you have the wisdom and courage to make these amends and restore serenity, calm, compassion, patience and justice tempered with mercy to my Supreme Court. My Lord, we all live in the womb of time and are judged, both by the present and by history. The judgement about you, being rendered in the present, is adverse in the extreme.
In all honesty, one has to wonder, however, whether it was that letter and other recent media focus on the Chief Justice that led to the removal of the Chief Justice, or whether these were merely instruments designed to prepare the way for this removal?
In either case, a removal of the Chief Justice in this way and for such reasons and at this time is a sad, sad development that will be one more blow to the hopes of the development of an independent judiciary in Pakistan.
Note: At various points we have reproduced, in our right-most column, cartoons from Daily Times (and here) and The News.
It’s Chacha :D
Fowarded by Saad,
chadha wardi londa kio nai :-)
Sorry if I misnterpetated some punjabi word as I don’t know it at all.
Mutahida’s Ghunda Gardi in action:
tinyurl.com/2mur29
On the issue of missuse of official vehicles by the chief justice please read below from the daily news (One wonder where the buck stops) :
EAD tampered with vehicles record sent to parliament
By Umar Cheema
ISLAMABAD: The Economic Affairs Division (EAD) has allegedly tampered with the record of expensive UN vehicles which are under the unauthorised use of a minister of state and a federal secretary.
An investigation into the misuse of vehicles conducted by The News, had revealed that the top officials of the ministry have tried to ‘befool’ the members of the National Assembly standing committee on the EAD by dispatching forged record to them.
Although the official record shows that the top officials are using a number of vehicles even though they are not entitled to do so, the document sent to the standing committee says that the said vehicles are used for protocol purposes only.
The record has been tampered with. Whitener (correcting fluid) has been used to replace the words ‘MoS’ and ‘Secretary’ with ‘protocol’. For example the list of operational vehicles say a Prado (2800cc) registration number UN-67-70 is, at present, being used by the MoS, Hina Rabbani Khar. The word ‘MoS’ has been removed by using correcting fluid and has been replaced with the word ‘protocol’.
Similarly, the EAD secretary Akram Malik, has two vehicles under his use. Again false information has been conveyed to the standing committee, in this regard. The MoS and federal secretary are entitled to one Toyota Corolla (1300) car each. But both vehicles have been ruthlessly misused.
In addition to the entitled corolla car (GE-990), Hina Rabbani Khar is also using Prado (UN-67-70), a vehicle meant for a UN project. A Suzuki Carry van (IDN-473) is also at the disposal of the MoS office.
Federal secretary, Malik Akram, has two unauthorised vehicles (shown as protocol vehicles in the record sent to the standing committee) at his disposal apart from the entitled Corolla (IDN-826). Besides this, there is another Corolla car (IDN-9574) and a Prado jeep (UN-67-71) in his personal use. His private secretary is using a Suzuki Alto (IDG-6166), the vehicle meant for general duty. A Mercedes Jeep, which was once the bone of contention among top officials, is missing from the EAD pool.
There is a Toyota Land Cruiser (IDM-3461) in the unauthorised use of a deputy secretary. In the record sent to the standing committee, the cruiser has been shown as a protocol vehicle. This correspondent contacted the EAD spokesperson for comments. He said he was unaware of the developments and would check the facts on Monday (today). He said the record sent to the standing committee was furnished by the admin section. As far as the admin section is oncerned, its section officer, Saifullah Butt, too has been using an unauthorised Toyota car 1300cc (X-68-1893). It is a project vehicle meant for general duty.
According to insiders, the section officer of the admin section has managed to retain his post for more than five years now, whereas under the rules the rotation should take place after every three years. Butt, whose parent department is the Social Welfare Ministry, was brought to the EAD on deputation.
A senior official said he is a favourite of a senior bureaucrat at present posted in the PM Secretariat who has stopped Butt’s transfer until now. He is believed to have strong nexus of interests with another deputationist, Mazhar Gondal, section officer (General and Japan Section). He has a double-cabin Toyota Hi-Lux (AD-22-474) in his unauthorised use. This double-cabin is a project vehicle and is meant for general duty
so what will bethe closure on the CJ case any opinions?