The elusive bulletproof car of ex-CJP Chaudhry

Saga of the state-provided vehicle continues to drag on in the IHC


Rizwan Shehzad December 11, 2016
PHOTO: AFP

ISLAMABAD: A former top judge of the country has been enjoying a luxurious ride in a state-provided bulletproof car at the taxpayers’ expense for the last three years. Attempts by the government and the courts to wrest it back have been successfully resisted so far.

Just a couple of months after he had retired, a single bench of the Islamabad High Court comprising Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui ruled on a plea by the former Rawalpindi high court bar association president, that former Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice (retired) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry -- the “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”.

Bulletproof car: Ex-CJP’s lawyers appeal directives to turn in car

Ever since, the ex-CJP has been driving around in the government-provided 6,000cc bulletproof Mercedes Benz with a jammer vehicle and squads of elite force and Rangers accompanying him wherever he goes, all paid for by the taxpayers.



The government had appealed against the ruling but the matter has been mired in court since.

The former top judge, who knows the nitty-gritties of the legal system, has effectively leveraged his judicial knowledge to continue his free ride.

Interestingly, Chaudhry is not directly engaged in the legal wrangling, hence he does not stand to blame. But, he is the ultimate beneficiary and his knowledge about the labyrinth of rules and regulations has time and again stopped the authorities from taking back the automobile.

While we cannot know how many miles the bomb-proof vehicle has completed till the car is brought in for an inspection at the court, litigation over recovering the vehicle has entered the second round at the IHC. The entire process of petitions, appeals and counter appeals are a classic example of how slow and inefficient the judicial system is.

The biggest example of this labyrinth was evident these past two weeks at the IHC.

Early in December, Justice Siddiqui  ordered the petitioners in the car case, Justice (retired) Chaudhry’s newly-established political party’s spokesperson Sheikh Ahsanuddin (the former RHCBA President and the original petitioner over which the car was granted) and another lawyer Taufiq Asif — who have been pleading the case in their personal capacities since 2014 — to surrender the car as case property.

The court gave them a week to bring the car back.

Bulletproof car case: Justice Siddiqui recuses himself

During this time, they filed an intra-court appeal against the order on grounds that the action would impact the former CJP’s fundamental rights and security. On December 6, the division bench of Justice Qureshi and Justice Farooq suspended Justice Siddiqui’s decision and sought a reply from the government in the case.

On December 8, after Justice Siddiqui asked about the fate of the car and was told that the order had been set aside, the judge recused himself from hearing the case.

While the wrangling continues, Justice (retired) Chaudhry once again benefits by keeping the vehicle a little while longer.

The bulletproof car case has seemingly become a classic example of the complex and slow judicial system of Pakistan. The counsels continue to find ways to convince the court not to take back the vehicle while simultaneously making sure that the former CJP keeps building his political career and enjoying free ride on taxpayers’ money.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 12th, 2016.

COMMENTS (6)

JA | 7 years ago | Reply Think about my country where even judges are exploiting the judicial system. Only God is saving this country from collapsing
Maqsood | 7 years ago | Reply @SR: Agree. He is the biggest balony on the face of earth. I rarely approved Musharraf's policies but he was right on this one.
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
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