Wiling to hear you: SC disposes of Musharraf’s appeal against registrar

Maintainability of review petition on judgment against emergency referred to larger bench.

ISLAMABAD:

Disposing of former president Pervez Musharraf’s appeal against registrar office, the Supreme Court’s judge Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali has referred the matter about the maintainability of former president Pervez Musharraf’s review petition against July 31, 2009 verdict, to the larger bench for deciding it.

The former president last month has filed two review petitions in the July 31 judgment on imposition emergency and made Sindh High Court Bar Association and Advocate Nadeem Ahmed as respondents.

Justice Jamali on Wednesday heard Musharraf’s appeal in the chamber against the SC registrar office order for not entertaining former president Pervez Musharraf’s review petition, seeking review of the landmark July 31, 2009, verdict about the imposition of emergency.



Musharraf’s lawyer Ibrahim Satti said that he would file an application regarding the hearing of their review petition on January 15. Satti on behalf of Musharraf on Wednesday appeared before Justice Jamali and gave his arguments regarding the objections, raised by SC registrar office on the review petition against July 31, 2009 judgment.

After hearing his arguments, Justice Jamali has observed that three objections regarding the maintainability of Musharraf’s review petition, using scandalous language against the judges in the petition and stopping special court’s proceedings would be heard by the larger bench at the time of hearing of review petition.

“After careful examination of the case record, particularly, the reply to these objections contained in the memos of appeal, I find submissions---quite fair, just and equitable. Accordingly, office objection is overruled; two days’ time is allowed for compliance of office objections No.ii, vi, vi, vii & ix, while the office objections No.i, ii & viii are ordered to be placed before the Court at the time of hearing of review petition. Title appeal against the order of the Registrar is accordingly disposed of,” honorable judge observed.

Earlier, the registrar’s office returned the petition the following day, saying it contained intemperate language against judges and that a second review could not be entertained. The applicant said a petitioner had every right to challenge an order of any court on the ground of bias of the judge.

“The question of competency or otherwise is the exclusive domain of the court and does not vest in the registrar under the Supreme Court Rules 1980,” the application said.

The appeal said the judges had challenged only those portions of the verdict that were prejudicial to their interest.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 9^th, 2014.