Questions that need answers !!!!

By Aziz-ud-Din Ahmad ..............There are a number of vital questions concerning the developments that started after CJ Ifitikhar Mohammad Chaudhry was made “non functional” that need answers.The first relates to the treatment meted out to him ever since. On Tuesday the Acting CJ told lawyers that Justice Chaudhry was still the Chief Justice of Pakistan. If so, under what law has he been stripped of his powers and privileges and denied the protocol reserved for the man heading the apex court? If he is still the CJ, why was he stopped from proceeding to the Supreme Court on Friday after leaving the President’s Camp Office? A report in a major English daily tells of a strong police force chasing his car and blocking it near Serena hotel from where the CJ was forcibly escorted to his official residence.Who decided, and under what law, to subsequently remove the official flag from his residence and put him under house arrest where he was to remain incommunicado. Only a selected category of people duly approved by the government have been allowed to meet him. He has complained that his children, including a school going infant, have been stopped from proceeding to their respective educational institutions.On Tuesday as the CJ proceeded to the SC for appearance before the Supreme Judicial Council he was roughed up by police, an incident unheard of in any civilised country. Later in the evening the security personnel stationed outside his residence denied access to his counsel despite an assurance from the Acting CJ that the proceedings against Justice Chaudhry would be fair and transparent. It needs to be explained at whose behest actions of the sort which amount to the humiliation of the entire judiciary were taken. Meanwhile the media trial of the CJ continues unabated. On Tuesday the CJ was accused by the Information Minister of acting like a politician. In order to ensure that the inquiry is conducted properly, the Constitution has to be adhered to in letter and spirit. In the present case this requires that the provisions of Article 209 dealing with the Supreme Judicial Council and of Article 180 dealing with the appointment of the Acting Chief Justice are strictly followed. Article 209 requires that when the SJC is conducting inquiry into the capacity or conduct of a SC judge who is a member of the Council, the later is to be replaced by a judge next to him in seniority as a member of the Council. Under the law Justice Chaudhry’s place in the SJC should have been taken by Justice Bhagwandas who is on leave till March 22. Why did the government act in indecent haste by proceeding to form the SJC without waiting for Justice Bhagwandas? CJ Chaudhry maintains that a reference/complaint against another judge is already lying in the record of the SJC. Couldn’t the government have waited for two weeks to initiate proceedings on the reference against CJ Chaudhry? And why did the government decide to appoint an Acting CJ? The constitution envisages only two situations where an appointment of the sort is justified. First, if the judge holding the office is absent. Second, when he is unable to perform the functions of his office for any other reasons. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is in Islamabad and his residence is within walking distance of the Supreme Court. He is physically and mentally fit to attend to his duties and is in fact keen to do so. The problem is that he is being hindered from the performance of his constitutional functions on the untenable ground that an inquiry is being conducted in his conduct. When a President can hold office while impeachment proceedings are launched against him, there is no justification to stop a CJ from performing his normal functions particularly his administrative duties and replace him by a an Acting CJ during a reference. What is the justification to conduct the inquiry in camera when the constitution does not specifically require this. Open trials are conducted to ensure that justice is not only seen but also done. If cases of misuse of authority and corruption can be conducted against former Prime Ministers and publicised what is the justification to exempt a section of society from this? Aren’t all citizens equal before law? In the present case in camera proceedings are all the more questionable. The charges and accusations against the CJ have been leveled openly and publicised in the press. At times they have been aired by government ministers. It would be against natural justice under the circumstances if he is not allowed to defend himself in public. E-mail: azizuddin@nation.com.pk (as published in the Daily Nation, Lahore, Pakistan, on 15th March,2007)