Personal preferences: Lawyers reject appointments for service tribunal

Say appointments made overnight to accommodate favourites.


Shabbir Mir February 24, 2014
G-B Governor Pir Karam Ali Shah. PHOTO:PID

GILGIT: The first ever service tribunal of Gilgit-Baltistan (G-B) has become controversial after lawyers termed its appointments ‘illegal’.

The G-B Assembly passed the service tribunal law two years ago after which it was referred to G-B Governor Pir Karam Ali Shah for approval. The governor signed it on February 21, 2014 officially establishing the first ever service tribunal of G-B. Through an ordinance, a former bureaucrat Hafizur Rahman was made its chairman while district judge Khurshid Alam and former bureaucrat Fida Hussain were made its members.

“We demand the ordinance be withdrawn and the appointments reversed,” said G-B Supreme Court Bar Association President Shahbaz Khan on Sunday.

“The appointments were made overnight to accommodate men of their own choice,” Khan said, referring to the service tribunal’s members.

He added under the original law, enacted by the assembly, it was mentioned that a high court judge or a senior lawyer should be chairman of the tribunal but that part was removed from the ordinance.

In a press release issued jointly by G-B Supreme Appellate Court Bar Association and High Court Bar Association on Saturday, the lawyers called the ordinance the worst example of legislation in G-B’s history which has robbed lawyers of their rights. “It is an insult to the judiciary that a grade  21 judge has been placed under a 19-grade retired bureaucrat in the tribunal,” the statement read, adding the ordinance is also an insult to the assembly that called for appointment of a high court judge for the slot. They accused G-B chief minister and governor of nepotism and said the law was violated for the sake of personal preference.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 24th, 2014.

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