JCP member Akhtar Hussain urges vote taking before 'abrupt' end to meetings.

Senior Advocate of Supreme Court Akhtar Hussain, who is part of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan as a representative of the Pakistan Bar Council, on Friday laid stress on meetings of the body ending with a formal vote-taking rather than the discussion "abruptly" ending without resolution.

Advocate Hussain became the latest member to write to the Commission and the chief justice, saying in his letter that he was "compelled" to do so. He noted that Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah and the Attorney General for Pakistan, Ashtar Ausaf, wrote letters addressed to the body before him.

"It is with considerable regret I am compelled to write this letter too," he said.

The advocate said that he feels that in the first place "the writing of such letters and the issuance of press releases and audio proceedings of the Commission's meeting should not have been necessary".

"If the meeting of 28 July had not been abruptly terminated and a formal vote and final decision been recorded in the minutes at the end of the meeting - this occasion may not have arisen," he said.

Advocate Hussain said a vote is essential "as it is entirely possible that one or more members of the Commission may change their minds after listening to their colleagues". This, he said, applies to the appointment of judges as well as any other matter discussed by the JCP.

Noting Justice Shah's concern that the audio may have affected the reputation of the judges, Advocate Hussain said it was necessary to have consulted with all members of the Judicial Commission before deciding to release the audio recordings in relaxation of the rules.

He also raised the point that although the attorney general observed that the Judicial Commission should defer all matters until rules and criteria for appointments were framed, but given that the only other person who had proposed deferring the meeting was the chief justice, "it could not be said that the majority of the Commission had decided to defer the meeting".

The advocate stressed on the need for the Commission to "amend the Judicial Commission's Rules and frame more objective, transparent and measurable criteria and processes for the nomination and appointments of judges".

"There is also a clear majority for adhering to seniority principle until this process is completed and also for allowing all Commission members to propose nominees for an appointment rather than the chief justice alone," he wrote.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT