Dogar’s attorney trains his guns on sitting judges

Contends that judges who themselves violated the SC verdict cannot prosecute others.

Qaiser Zulfiqar January 12, 2011

ISLAMABAD: A four-member bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on the formation of a bench that will hear a case against PCO judges.

The bench headed by Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui was hearing an application filed by former chief justice Abdul Hameed Dogar wherein he has asked the Supreme Court to halt the proceedings of the case against PCO Judges.

Ibrahim Satti, the counsel for the former top adjudicator, pleaded before the bench, comprising Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Tariq Pervez, that the judges who returned to the court before the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary also violated the November 3, 2007 decision.

Directly addressing the bench he said, “All of you committed the same violation as the PCO judges therefore those who also violated the decision of the Supreme Court cannot prosecute others.” Satti further said that his client therefore has no trust in this bench so the court may excuse itself from hearing the case against the PCO judges.

“The court is being objected time and again. Tell us, from where should we bring other judges for hearing this case?” Justice Shahid asked Satti.

Later the court reserved its verdict on the objections which would be announced today (Wednesday) and adjourned the hearing. Satti had raised similar objections during the previous hearings of the case. “There is no law in Pakistan concerning contempt of court,” he said. “As there is no law for contempt of court in the country, the court therefore cannot hear this (PCO judges’) case,” Satti contended.

The court, however, overruled the counsel’s contention and directed him to argue the case.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 12th, 2011.

Facebook Conversations


Analyser | 9 years ago | Reply | Recommend Hypocrites all around.
salim | 9 years ago | Reply | Recommend It's amazing how we as a nation percieve things differently: Some PCO's are 'halal' while othes are opposed as 'haram' Some dictorships are happily acceped as 'halal' while another maybe 'haram' Some politicians who supported dictatorship 'halal' while others who did exactly the samething are 'haram' IT'S ALL A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE!!
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

Load Next Story