Permission issue: IHC judge says would ‘bow to SC’s wisdom’
Justice Kayani is accused of charging high fee as EOBI counsel
PHOTO: AFP
ISLAMABAD:
A serving high court judge, who has been accused of charging exorbitant fee as a lawyer for Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) without the authorisation of the federal Ministry of Law, has assured that he would bow to the wisdom of the Supreme Court and act in accordance with whatever decision is taken in the matter.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar, was hearing a suo motu case pertaining to the hiring of private counsels by the EOBI.
The bench summoned Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and other lawyers to explain how they obtained fees from the department without approval of the ministry concerned.
According to the list, Justice Minallah got Rs850,000 fee on July 31, 2012. Likewise, AQ Law Associate, where Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani was working as a lawyer, earned Rs658,000 the same year.
In compliance of the order, Justice Kayani, through the IHC registrar, submitted a three-page reply wherein it is stated that in 2012, the management of the institution had approached him to appear before the apex court.
After examination, consent was communicated along with an invoice for the charges of professional services rendered. The professional fee was determined giving regard to Rule 154 of the Rules of 1976, says the reply.
It is also submitted that the management of the institution provided a duly executed power of attorney, which was submitted before the SC.
EOBI fee case: SC issues notices to two sitting IHC judges, lawyers
“Based on tradition and practice of the legal profession, it was his lordship’s understanding that the institution, having been established as an autonomous entity under an Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (parliament) must have obtained the necessary permissions/authorisations required under the law before executing the power of attorney, his lordship has attended several hearings at the SC of Pakistan till the matter was finally decided,” says the reply submitted by Justice Kayani through the IHC registrar.
Regarding his appearance before the SC’s May order, the reply stated that the IHC judge requested that his appearance before the apex court in person or through a counsel may be excused on the ground that since this was not a reference or a trial of him, it would not be in conformity with his position as a high court judge.
It is to be mentioned that noted lawyer Babar Sattar was hired by the department in 34 cases, and earned millions in fee without the approval of the said ministry.
Likewise, Fakhar Zaman Tarar, Ahmed Shehzad Farooq, Sarfraz Ali Metlo, Syed Ahmed Ali Shah and Gohar Ali Khan also appeared in several cases and were paid handsomely.
The bench has issued a notice to each lawyer.
However, the EOBI engaged Khawaja Haris and Rahseed A Rizvi after the Ministry of Law’s approval.
Similarly, the EOBI engaged Aitzaz in one case with the approval of the Ministry of Law, but a second one was not approved.
The hearing of the case will resume today (Wednesday).
A serving high court judge, who has been accused of charging exorbitant fee as a lawyer for Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) without the authorisation of the federal Ministry of Law, has assured that he would bow to the wisdom of the Supreme Court and act in accordance with whatever decision is taken in the matter.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar, was hearing a suo motu case pertaining to the hiring of private counsels by the EOBI.
The bench summoned Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and other lawyers to explain how they obtained fees from the department without approval of the ministry concerned.
According to the list, Justice Minallah got Rs850,000 fee on July 31, 2012. Likewise, AQ Law Associate, where Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani was working as a lawyer, earned Rs658,000 the same year.
In compliance of the order, Justice Kayani, through the IHC registrar, submitted a three-page reply wherein it is stated that in 2012, the management of the institution had approached him to appear before the apex court.
After examination, consent was communicated along with an invoice for the charges of professional services rendered. The professional fee was determined giving regard to Rule 154 of the Rules of 1976, says the reply.
It is also submitted that the management of the institution provided a duly executed power of attorney, which was submitted before the SC.
EOBI fee case: SC issues notices to two sitting IHC judges, lawyers
“Based on tradition and practice of the legal profession, it was his lordship’s understanding that the institution, having been established as an autonomous entity under an Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (parliament) must have obtained the necessary permissions/authorisations required under the law before executing the power of attorney, his lordship has attended several hearings at the SC of Pakistan till the matter was finally decided,” says the reply submitted by Justice Kayani through the IHC registrar.
Regarding his appearance before the SC’s May order, the reply stated that the IHC judge requested that his appearance before the apex court in person or through a counsel may be excused on the ground that since this was not a reference or a trial of him, it would not be in conformity with his position as a high court judge.
It is to be mentioned that noted lawyer Babar Sattar was hired by the department in 34 cases, and earned millions in fee without the approval of the said ministry.
Likewise, Fakhar Zaman Tarar, Ahmed Shehzad Farooq, Sarfraz Ali Metlo, Syed Ahmed Ali Shah and Gohar Ali Khan also appeared in several cases and were paid handsomely.
The bench has issued a notice to each lawyer.
However, the EOBI engaged Khawaja Haris and Rahseed A Rizvi after the Ministry of Law’s approval.
Similarly, the EOBI engaged Aitzaz in one case with the approval of the Ministry of Law, but a second one was not approved.
The hearing of the case will resume today (Wednesday).