Supreme Court issues notices to ex-DG ISI Faiz Hamid, The government would give a pension to Siddiqui, however, he cannot be reinstated as an IHC judge. CJ

Supreme Court issues notices to ex-DG ISI Faiz Hamid, three others in case against removal of IHC judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui

The chief justice then said that the government would give a pension to Siddiqui, however, he cannot be reinstated as an IHC judge as he is 62 years old.

ISLAMABAD   (  Web  News  )

The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Friday issued notices to four people, including former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) director-general Lieutenant General (retd) Faiz Hamid, in a case related to the removal of Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui as a judge of the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

The notices were issued by a five-member bench led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, which included Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan while hearing an appeal filed by Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui against his removal.

The three others who were issued notices are retired Brigadier (retd) Irfan Ramay, former Islamabad High Court chief justice Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi, and a former registrar of the Supreme Court, Arbab Muhammad Arif.

Siddiqui had nominated seven individuals in his amended plea, however, the court remarked that three others — former chief of army staff Qamar Javed Bajwa, and two retired brigadier (retd) Faisal Marwat and brigadier (retd) Tahir Wafai — had no direct connection with the case.

The Supreme Court was seized with an appeal moved by Siddiqui against an opinion of the Supreme Judicial Council, and an Oct 11, 2018, notification under which he was removed as a superior court judge for a speech he delivered at the District Bar Association, Rawalpindi, on July 21 of that year.

At the start of the hearing, the chief justice asked the applicant to confirm the truth of his allegations. “Think carefully about whether your allegations are true,” he reiterated.

Siddiqui’s counsel, Hamid Khan Advocate, affirmed the truth of the allegations.

The chief justice pointed out that “you are making facilitators as respondents while other beneficiaries are some other people.”

He questioned why the direct beneficiary wasn’t included if facilitators were made respondents.

CJP Isa asked: “Is the Army an independent institution or does it come under someone’s authority?”

Hamid Khan responded: “It comes under the government.” The chief justice pressed: “The government is not an individual. Tell us about a person who runs the army.”

He cautioned that Siddiqui’s serious allegations could lead to significant consequences.

Justice Mandokhail emphasised the need for the court to address “what had been happening in the past.”

CJP Isa pointed out that Siddiqui primarily named Faiz Hamid, noting: “Qamar Javed Bajwa had not spoken anything directly about Siddiqui.”

He questioned the logic of issuing a notice to Bajwa. “Why should we issue a notice to him on the basis of this hearsay?”

The chief justice highlighted that there was no direct allegation against Bajwa. He also observed that Ramay was irrelevant to the case.

Justice Mandokhail inquired whether the former IHC chief justice had constituted a bench as allegedly desired by the former DG ISI.

In response to Justice Mandokhail’s question about the decisions on Nawaz Sharif’s appeals, the counsel clarified that Nawaz had recently been acquitted after the hearing of his pleas.

CJP Isa noted that Faizabad sit-in of 2017 was, in a speech, referred to as “sponsored”.

The counsel reminded the CJP that he had issued a verdict on the matter.

However, CJP Isa suggested setting the verdict aside and focusing on what the petitioner had written in his plea.

Siddiqui’s counsel asserted that the former ISI DG aimed to prevent Nawaz Sharif from being granted bail before the 2018 polls, “and what he desired had happened”.

After the hearing, the court issued notices to four of the seven respondents and adjourned the hearing until an unspecified date in January.

Friday’s proceedings were broadcast live on the apex court’s website as well as on its YouTube channel.

The counsel of the Islamabad and Karachi Bar Associations Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed then said that things should be done step-by-step, at which the CJP said that everything is interconnected.

“Either he [Khan] should say that they are independent and not interconnected. There is a specific allegation that has come before us is the manipulation that was being planned for the elections to keep certain people or certain parties out and to benefit somebody else,” the CJP said.

The top judge inquired whether the court should close its eyes on that aspect and only focus on where the petitioner wanted to take the court.

Salahuddin said that the allegations were also leveled that manoeuvring was done within the judiciary by certain military officers in order to keep one individual out of electoral politics.

“Why are shying from taking names?” asked CJP from Salahuddin, to which he named Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) supremo Nawaz Sharif and his opponents.

“What is the interest of Islamabad and Karachi Bar Association in the matter? Is your only concern to secure pensionary benefits? asked CJP.

At this, Barrister Salahuddin replied that their interest and leading prayer is “that if there is some judicial manipulation that has taken place if those allegations are correct, then the truth must out and the guilty parties must also be punished for those actions.”

Justice Mandokhail observed that the accusations have been made against the judicial system.

The chief justice then said that the government would give a pension to Siddiqui, however, he cannot be reinstated as an IHC judge as he is 62 years old.

Lawyer Hamid Khan then argued that Gen (retd) Faiz Hamid wanted Nawaz Sharif to remain behind bars till the 2018 elections.

The Supreme Court stated that the former IHC judge has made serious allegations against some people and the top court believes that they should be given a chance to respond.

The SC then ordered Siddiqui’s counsel to amend his petition on the notices, directing him to resubmit within a week. The date of the next hearing will be announced later on.