VVIP retirees: Govt’s comment on CJ security petition sought
Petitioner wants Iftikhar Chaudhary given security at par with former president.
Petitioner wants Iftikhar Chaudhary given security at par with former president. PHOTO: INP
ISLAMABAD:
A lawyer’s qualms about the security being provided to former chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary have led to a court call in for the additional interior secretary. Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Shaukat Siddiqui on Wednesday directed the additional secretary to appear before the court on January 3 to respond to a petition filed by lawyer Sheikh Ahsanuddin urging the court to direct the authorities to provide security to former CJP Chaudhry.
The petitioner, a former Lahore High Court Bar Association president, argued before the court that former president Asif Ali Zardari, his sister Faryal Talpur and former army chief Pervez Kayani are enjoying foolproof security. “A Sindh High Court bench, through a decision, had directed the concerned government officials to provide security to the former president,” he said.
The petitioner told the court that the Chaudhry is an important personality. “Moving around the country, he needs security as he had been very proactive during his office tenure and played a historical role,” he told the court.
The petitioner argued that the former CJP, in his time, decided many cases against powerful forces in the country, for which he now requires security.
But is it needed?
Speaking on the former CJ’s eligibility to get a special protection detail, former Senator SM Zafar, who is also a Supreme Court lawyer, said there is no constitutional provision in this regard.
“It is an administrative issue and the administration decides, from time to time if any persons require special security. Former presidents and prime ministers get security after their terms according to normal protocol, but there is no such provision for a retired CJP because, the kind of threats that people have for their life had never arisen in the past for a chief justice.”
He felt the petitions such as this one should be dismissed as courts do not have anything to do with such administrative matters.
However, he emphasised that from time to time, the state should review who needs special security and why.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 2nd, 2014.
A lawyer’s qualms about the security being provided to former chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary have led to a court call in for the additional interior secretary. Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Shaukat Siddiqui on Wednesday directed the additional secretary to appear before the court on January 3 to respond to a petition filed by lawyer Sheikh Ahsanuddin urging the court to direct the authorities to provide security to former CJP Chaudhry.
The petitioner, a former Lahore High Court Bar Association president, argued before the court that former president Asif Ali Zardari, his sister Faryal Talpur and former army chief Pervez Kayani are enjoying foolproof security. “A Sindh High Court bench, through a decision, had directed the concerned government officials to provide security to the former president,” he said.
The petitioner told the court that the Chaudhry is an important personality. “Moving around the country, he needs security as he had been very proactive during his office tenure and played a historical role,” he told the court.
The petitioner argued that the former CJP, in his time, decided many cases against powerful forces in the country, for which he now requires security.
But is it needed?
Speaking on the former CJ’s eligibility to get a special protection detail, former Senator SM Zafar, who is also a Supreme Court lawyer, said there is no constitutional provision in this regard.
“It is an administrative issue and the administration decides, from time to time if any persons require special security. Former presidents and prime ministers get security after their terms according to normal protocol, but there is no such provision for a retired CJP because, the kind of threats that people have for their life had never arisen in the past for a chief justice.”
He felt the petitions such as this one should be dismissed as courts do not have anything to do with such administrative matters.
However, he emphasised that from time to time, the state should review who needs special security and why.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 2nd, 2014.