SJC secretary denies allegations levelled by Justice Isa – Pakistan

ISLAMABAD: The secretary of the Supreme Judicial Council (CSJ), Arbab Muhammad Arif, denied Saturday the accusations made by Judge Qazi Faez Isa in a rejoinder filed before the Supreme Court.

In response to a page submitted to the full court with a series of petitions that challenge the submission of a reference against Judge Isa, the SJC secretary stated that the accusations mentioned in the judge's rejoinder were against the file and that always He had done his homework. with righteousness, integrity and honesty.

Mr. Arif said that he had always acted in good faith in the performance of his duties and that he had maintained and would continue to hold all the judges of the superior court in high esteem.

In his reply, Judge Isa had accused the SJC secretary of arranging the presidential reference before the council by demonstrating unusual hurry when the body did not conduct a hearing out of turn.

By employing doubtful tactics, the secretary became a plaintiff, the petitioner judge had alleged

According to the rejoinder, the secretary set the reference when the petitioner judge was on a sanctioned permit to help his wife take care of her father, who had been diagnosed with cancer.

He argued that the situation had deprived the petitioner of his fundamental right to a fair trial and due process, especially when he could not seek legal advice and legal representation.

Mr. Arif also provided the response of the petitioner judge to the attorney general, the prosecutor in the reference, even when the council had not asked him to do so.

Of his own will, the SJC secretary obtained a copy of the petitioner's private secretary's reply and handed it to the attorney general on the same day he appeared, that is, on June 28, the judge alleged, adding that the The secretary kept the council in the dark about the rush to provide the attorney general with a copy of the response.

Similarly, the secretary assumed the powers of the council upon receiving the "illegally filed" reply from the attorney general in the absence of any directive of the SJC and "in violation" of the Investigation Procedure of the Supreme Judicial Council, 2005.

The secretary of the SJC received three letters from the petitioner judge who wrote to President Arif Alvi, in which a complaint was filed about the "media trial, character murder, humiliation, defamation and flagrant violation of his Fundamental rights". said. But the secretary considered that none of these letters was worthy enough for him to realize or prepare a note for the president of the Supreme Court / SJC.

The secretary "discriminated against the petitioner" and showed "chutzpah" upon immediately receiving a complaint about these letters, a second reference that was finally rejected by the SJC, said the rejoinder. The complaint did not contain supporting evidence regarding its content and an information sheet was prepared overnight and presented to the council in record time.

The rejoinder alleged that the role of the secretary, in terms of the SJC procedure, was secretarial in nature, but issued a justified cause notice in two references. In the alleged notification of justified cause, the secretary included material that was not in the presidential reference, although he referred to the reprimand moved by the attorney general and reproduced extensively the text of its content, either literally, copying or paraphrasing passages.

Arif included in the alleged notice of justified cause allegations that found no mention in the complaint received in the reference, such as the claim that the petitioner judge had made advances against state institutions. By employing such tactics, the SJC secretary had become a plaintiff, said the rejoinder.

The petitioner judge also submitted two requests to the SJC on July 25, requesting copies of the documentary evidence declared as filed before Abdul Waheed Dogar's complaint, the original complaint on the basis of which the presidential reference was filed, and also requesting disclosure public of the judge’s response.

None of these requests were processed despite the fact that the information and documents sought through the first request must be provided immediately because "there is a good chance that they will be created, manufactured and manipulated," said the rejoinder.

He added that the petitioner judge was made complying with impossible deadlines for submitting his response to the SJC notice and when the last date for submitting responses arrived (July 31), the secretary himself was absent without any indication to the petitioner or his private secretary

Posted on Dawn, October 20, 2019