Ex-CJP equates his security needs with premier’s

Federation argues provision of bulletproof car to judge-turned-politician is unprecedented, discriminatory

ISLAMABAD:

The Islamabad High Court issued notices to the federation and former Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry in connection with the federal government’s intra-court appeal to reclaim possession of a bulletproof car provided to the retired judge, and Chaudhry’s counter-applications.

A division bench comprising Justice Noorul Haq Qureshi and Justice Aamer Farooq issued notice to the government and the former CJP with directions to submit replies before February 8 (Monday) as the SC had directed the IHC to decide the matter within the first week of February.

SC's help sought to reclaim ex-CJP's bulletproof car

The bench remarked that they wanted to decide the case at an earliest by hearing it on a daily basis. The court also directed the appellants and the respondents to exchange replies before the next hearing.

In the appeal, the appellants — the cabinet and law secretaries — said they were not a party in the petition which led to the provision of a bulletproof car to the ex-CJP.

In January 2014, a single bench comprising Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui had ordered that the “former chief justice shall be provided foolproof security along with possession of...a bulletproof car for his and his family’s use without putting embargo of any time specification.”

The Cabinet Division had issued a notification that said the vehicle was being provided to the former CJP for three months. However, Justice Siddiqui held that the ‘time-specific clause was unfeasible, unrealistic and discriminatory’.

The ICA further states that there is no precedent for the provision of a bulletproof car to any former CJP, and if the practice is allowed, it will not only open the door for all retired judges of the superior judiciary to request the same, but would also be discriminatory under Article 25 of the Constitution.



It added that as far as the security of the former CJP is concerned, the appellants were ready to provide whatever is allowed under existing rules and regulations. Subsequently, it has been prayed that the single bench judgment be set aside.

On the other hand, respondents Sheikh Ahsanuddin, Taufeeq Asif and others said the authorities should furnish undertakings from the chief executives of Pakistan and each of the provinces, and from the interior minister to the effect that there is no threat to the judge-turned politician or his family, and that if any incident happens, they would be held responsible.

They also questioned under what law security was being provided to the Prime Minister’s family, Captain Safdar, Najam Sethi, the family of the slain Governor Punjab Salman Taseer, and others, while it is being withdrawn from the ex-CJP.

In another application, they have requested the court to constitute a full court bench to hear the case.

Additional Attorney General (AAG) Afnan Karim Kundi raised objections on the applications, saying that the submissions were improper, scandalous and brings the executive to ridicule.



Remission plea rejected

The IHC on Thursday rejected a remission of sentence plea filed by a man convicted of drug trafficking by a British court, citing that foreign court rulings are beyond its jurisdiction.

In 2004, Asad Javed was convicted of drug trafficking by Crown Court at Southwark in the UK and sentenced to 25 years in prison. In 2010, he was repatriated to Pakistan, where he would serve out his sentence, under a bilateral agreement regarding prisoners.

But ‘corrupt’ elements within the Interior Ministry and police allegedly released him using ‘forged’ documents. In 2012, the British government stopped the repatriation of criminals to Pakistan after learning of this case.

Javed was released from Karachi Central Jail on September 9, 2010 after the home department granted him remission, according to documents produced in court by the FIA. On March 28, 2015, the FIA arrested Javed again.

The bench, comprising Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui and Justice Athar Minallah, observed that the court could not accept any plea seeking reduction or remission of sentences handed down by foreign courts, but maintained that the convict may approach the relevant authorities to file a relief plea.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 5^th, 2016.