Charges against Judges

[ghazi52]

.,.,.

SJC weighs charges against SC judge to initiate formal probe​

Nasir Iqbal
November 22, 2023

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), a constitutional body empowered to hear misconduct cases against judges, convened on Tuesday to evaluate allegations against a sitting Supreme Court judge and determine whether the charges hold enough merit to warrant a formal inquiry.

The SJC explained to the complainants that if it finds the allegations significant, it will issue a formal show-cause notice to the judge — Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi — requiring his response.

The council’s decision, expected as soon as Wednesday (today), hinges on the strength of the evidence presented against Justice Naqvi, who was also present during Tuesday’s proceedings and represented by senior counsel Khawaja Haris Ahmad.

On Monday, Mr Ahmad advanced preliminary arguments before the SJC, as Justice Naqvi challenged the Oct 28 show-cause notice served on him by the council, arguing that the proceedings were coram non judice, i.e. before a court that lacks the authority to hear and decide the case.

Council may serve notice on Justice Mazahar Naqvi today if it finds charges to be significant

The SJC is headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa and also comprises Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Ijazul Ahsan of the Supreme Court, Lahore High Court Chief Justice Mohammad Ameer Bhatti, and Balochistan High Court Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

During Tuesday’s proceedings, the SJC requested substantial evidence from the complainants to corraborate the accusations of misconduct and explain why the judge should be removed from the top court.

In response, Hassan Raza Pasha presented his case on behalf of the Pakistan Bar Council, whereas Mian Dawood, a Lahore-based lawyer, reiterated several allegations against the judge, a source said.

The audio leaks containing an alleged conversation between the judge and former Punjab chief minister Chaudhry Parvez Elahi also came under discussion. One complainant accused the judge of openly flaunting his relationship with the PTI and its leaders and even using his influence to turn PTI-related cases in their favour.

The complainants also levelled allegations of amassing properties beyond known sources of income and requested the SJC to order the judge to furnish a money trail.

They further alleged that the judge used his position to facilitate his sons and a daughter studying abroad and received financial gains from Zahid Rafique, the owner of Future Holdings.

They claimed that the judge sold House No. 375 in DHA Phase-2, Gujranwala Cantt, in 2021 for Rs60 million after purchasing it for only Rs4.7m.

The judge also allegedly revised his returns at least three times in 2021 and changed income statements. Moreover, in his returns for 2021, the judge did not mention Allied Plaza (located at Civil Lines Gujranwala) in his returns, even though he owned the property.

Meanwhile, Amna Malik, whose complaint against Justice Sardar Tariq Masood was rejected on Monday, conceded during the question-answer session that her husband, Abdullah Malik, was a junior associate of Advocate M. Azhar Siddique.

Mr Siddique was provided with a copy of the complaint and he later tweeted about the filing of the complaint before the SJC. However, she could not answer who drafted the complaint against Justice Masood.

Ms Malik also conceded that she was satisfied with the reply of Justice Masood in response to her complaint since he had attached all documents. However, she refused to answer how she obtained the copy of the FBR’s record mentioned in her complaint.

She also conceded that neither she nor her husband were taxpayers, and was unable to specify under which law her organisation — the Civil Society Network Pakistan, of which she is the president — was registered. She was also unaware of how many members were working in the organisation; she even failed to name a single member of the organisation.

On Monday, the SJC had rejected the complaint after finding it unreliable and untrustworthy and observed that Ms Malik intentionally withheld information and did not tell the truth while answering several questions.

SJC weighs charges against SC judge to initiate formal probe

Council may serve notice on Justice Mazahar Naqvi today if it finds charges to be significant.

www.dawn.com

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,.,

SJC issues show-cause notice to Justice Naqvi​

Nasir Iqbal
November 23, 2023

ISLAMABAD: By a majority of four to one, the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on Wednesday issued a show-cause notice afresh to a sitting Supreme Court judge, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, with a direction to come up with his defence by filing a reply within a fortnight.

Headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, the SJC also dispatched the complete record of allegations and evidence mentioned in the complaints against Justice Naqvi to furnish his reply within a fortnight. The SJC is a constitutional body that probes allegations of misconduct against the superior court judges.

The decision to issue the show-cause notice was taken by the CJP, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Chief Justice Lahore High Court Muhammad Ameer Bhatti and Chief Justice Balochistan High Court Naeem Akhtar Afghan, though Justice Ijazul Ahsan dissented.

Earlier on Oct 27, the SJC issued a show-cause notice by a majority of three to two with a direction to respond to the same by filing a reply.

Justice Naqvi, in his objections to the first show-cause notice, stated that it failed to specify the actual allegations in the complaints that should fall within the category of misconduct.

Justice Naqvi was facing complaints instituted by a Lahore-based lawyer and social media influencer Advocate Mian Dawood, PML-N Lawyers’ Forum, the top regulatory body of lawyers namely the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) and a private citizen Advocate Ghulam Murtaza Khan, as well as the Sindh Bar Council (SBC).

On Tuesday, the SJC closed its proceedings for Wednesday to deliberate on whether the allegations levelled through private complaints against the judge have enough substance to proceed further or should be simply rejected.

Then the SJC explained to the complainants that in case it arrived at a conclusion that the allegations against the judge were substantial and of a serious nature, it will require an appropriate response from the judge after issuing formal show-cause notice to him.

During Tuesday’s proceedings the complainants advance arguments and furnished additional documents to establish the allegations they had levelled in their respective complaints of misconduct against Justice Naqvi.

Earlier, in his objections, Justice Naqvi had regretted that from the record, it was evident that the manner in which the proceedings had been initiated against him by issuing the show-cause was repugnant to and inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Further, the issuance of the press release on Oct 27, 2023, without his prior consent not only violates his fundamental rights but also subjected him to a media trial, maligns and ridicules him in the public eye.

The objection had also highlighted that the show-cause notice does not identify whether he was being called upon to answer the common allegations, or that he was supposed to respond them jointly, or to respond to each and every allegation in each complaint.

Justice Naqvi had stated that by not making documents available to him, not only had denied a fair trial and equal protection of law but such conduct raises a serious question on the propriety and transparency of the proceedings of the SJC.

It said the proceedings against the judge have been conducted in a manner which was ex facie discriminatory and these, therefore, violate Article 25 of the Constitution.

The objection also termed the complaints as frivolous and politically motivated and requested for its dismissal.