Latest news with #IHCBA
Express Tribune
7 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
IHCBA to hold jurists confab on 26th Amendment
The Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) has announced to organise a jurists conference for an open debate on the advantages and disadvantages of the 26th Constitutional Amendment and invited the Insaf Lawyers Forum to suggest names of its two jurists for the conference. IHCBA President Wajid Ali Gilani wrote a letter to Ali Bukhari of the Insaf Lawyers Forum — which is linked to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf — in response to his critical letter. Gilani said that the 26th Amendment was passed by parliament and the lawyers would uphold the Constitution. "Lawyers are not legislators, our mandate is to defend the constitutional structure not to hold protest marches against legislation," Gilani said. Two parliamentarians from your party, Barrister Gohar Ali Khan and Senator Ali Zafar, were present during its [26th Amendment] passage." He further said that IHCBA would convene a Jurist Conference for an open debate on the advantages and disadvantages of the 26th Amendment, adding that eminent jurists from all political parties would be invited. "You should nominate two jurists from your party to participate in the Jurist Conference."
Express Tribune
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Alarms over the 27th constitutional tweak
While the federal government has yet to formally move ahead with the 27th Constitutional Amendment, murmurs of discontent and debate have already taken root within the legal fraternity as the Supreme Court resumes hearings on review petitions challenging the July 12 order in the reserved seats case. Tensions escalated further when Islamabad High Bar Association (IHCBA) President Wajid Gilani came out in support of the proposed amendment, hailing it as an opportunity for much-needed "structural reforms" in the superior judiciary. However, the Karachi Bar Association (KBA) fired back, condemning Gilani's stance and warning that lawyers from Sindh would "strongly resist, by any means necessary, any attempt to reintroduce martial law and impose this judicial one-unit scheme upon the federation of Pakistan". 'Post-constitutional order' Weighing in, former additional attorney general Tariq Mahmood Khokhar pointed out that the original draft of the 26th Amendment had already been significantly revised under duress. "In the face of opposition, to the chagrin of the Established Order, many of its amendment clauses had to be dropped from the final draft. But they were not abandoned as a lost cause," Khokhar said. He argued that the current political climate is "propitious" for reintroducing those previously omitted provisions through the 27th Amendment. "Victory on the battlefield can be seductive. Opposition is almost invariably a daunting task in Pakistan. More so now than ever before. Even otherwise, controlled institutions, lacking public legitimacy, unrepresentative legislatures and executives, the mainstream media and the legal fraternity are vying for collaboration." Khokhar warned that these dormant clauses could now return with ease, asserting that the 26th Amendment had already propelled Pakistan into a "post-constitutional order". "The proposed 27th Amendment will 'formally' replace the already diminished rule of law with rule by law (law as an instrument of control). Expect reintroduction of military courts, a federal constitutional court, revamped judicial commission, redefined provincial powers, diminished judiciary, curtailment of the fundamental rights, marginalisation of the constitutional institutions, an authoritarian presidential system and more," he said. "The supreme tragic irony is that the intended victims are, with rare honourable exceptions, willing accomplices in and apologists for offences against the constitution and democracy," Khokhar warned. Meanwhile, lawyers have begun to question why the committee of constitutional benches, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, has not yet fixed hearings on petitions against the 26th Constitutional Amendment, as it moves swiftly on the reserved seats case – a matter deemed crucial for enabling the ruling coalition to secure two-thirds majority in Parliament. Observers note that the constitutional bench appears eager to wrap up the proceedings on the reserved seats case without delay. However, questions are being raised over whether such haste risks undermining judicial independence, a salient feature of the Constitution. Moreover, the very formation of the constitutional bench is itself under scrutiny. A section of the legal community alleges that those who benefited from the 26th Amendment are hesitant to adjudicate its legal challenges. In 2015, a majority of SC judges, in the landmark 21st Constitutional Amendment case, had held that the parliamentary form of government was a salient feature of the Constitution and could not be amended via constitutional amendment. Justice (retd) Sheikh Azmat Saeed authored the judgment, which was endorsed by eight judges. According to the verdict, the constitution contains a scheme that reflects its salient features. "In an effort to discover such salient features, material outside the Constitution cannot be safely relied upon. The salient features are ascertainable from the Constitution including democracy, the parliamentary form of government and independence of the judiciary," the ruling read. It further stated that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution was subject to implied limitations. As per Articles 238 and 239, Parliament may amend the Constitution, provided that the salient features are not repealed, abrogated, or substantively altered. The judgment also affirmed that the apex court is vested with jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution and to determine whether any constitutional amendment violates its defining features. While the majority judgment remains in force, legal circles maintain that there was still a pressing need for the top court to examine the validity of the 26th Constitutional Amendment. They caution that further delay in adjudication could open the door for additional constitutional amendments, potentially threatening the Constitution's foundational principles. Meanwhile, in its strongly worded statement, the Karachi Bar Association expressed dismay over IHCBA President Gilani's public endorsement of an amendment "as yet unknown to the nation at large". "The lawyers and the people of Pakistan expect Bar Associations and Bar Councils to be independent voices. They must not act as proxies on behalf of the Government and be used to throw out feelers on the Government's behalf and declare support and rubber-stamp constitutional amendments that are yet to even see the light of day." The KBA argued that making such statements while the legal community continues to grapple with the consequences of the 26th Amendment, which has not only been rejected by the legal community at large but is also sub judice, was "entirely unwarranted". "If indeed there is any such Amendment on the anvil and the Government has seen fit to secretly share its contents with the IHCBA President; he should share the same with his actual constituents – which is the legal community." "The news is also being spread that such Amendment will include a requirement of fresh oath for superior court judges. This is a transparent attempt to intimidate the few judges left who are yet to surrender their conscience at the feet of the government. It is identical to the PCO oaths invented by General Zia and General Musharraf for this very purpose and any civilian and legal/judicial collaborators in this martial-law exercise shall surely be remembered in the same terms as Sharifuddin Pirzada and Abdul Hameed Dogar," the statement further read. "In any event, to the extent the learned IHCBA President has announced support for constitutional amendments that would allow High Court and Lower Court judges from Islamabad to be transferred and posted in the different provinces (with or without their consent); the Karachi Bar Association considers this not only an attack on judicial independence but an attack on federalism and the autonomy and independence of provincial judiciaries." "Let there be no doubt, the lawyers of Sindh strongly reject and shall resist, by any means necessary, any attempt to reintroduce martial-law and impose this judicial One-Unit scheme upon the Federation of Pakistan," the association warned.
Express Tribune
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Iqbal faults state pillars for past crises
Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal said on Thursday that the political crises in the country were created either by one pillar of the state or the other, as he called for all sides to work for making the country economically strong. Addressing an event in connection with Youm-e-Takbeer — the anniversary of Pakistan's nuclear blasts — at the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA), the minister emphasised that judiciary should not be used in any political confrontation. "All crises in Pakistan were artificial and created by one of the pillars of the state. Political crises were sometimes created by the establishment and sometimes by the judiciary. The 26th Constitutional Amendment was enacted because the judiciary was used for political purposes," he said. "The decision to disqualify Nawaz Sharif in 2017 pushed the country towards a political crisis. But now even our establishment is saying that they are not interested in creating any new political party. Now they are saying that they will keep themselves away from politics." Speaking about Pakistan's nuclear blasts in 1998, he said that the six explosions on May 28 were a befitting reply to India five explosions. "The credit for laying the foundation of the nuclear programme goes to late prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan," he said. "All the succeeding governments carried this programme forward and Nawaz Sharif rejected the international pressure and carried out the explosions," he continued. "Youm-e-Takbeer is not only a celebration of past successes but also a day of our firm resolve for the future." This year's Youm-e-Takbeer celebrations came just weeks after Pakistan-India military confrontation. Iqbal said that when India challenged Pakistan, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) proved its superiority by shooting down six Indian warplanes that included three Rafales. "The latest technology, of which India was proud, was crushed by the PAF. India then cried to Washington and requested for a ceasefire, which we accepted because we want peace," the minister said. "Technology played a very important role in the success against India on May 10." The minister stressed the need for a strong economy for strong defence. He called for a national resolve to beat the enemy in the field of economy. "We have a lot of tax evasion. We are among the countries having low tax collection," he added.
Express Tribune
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Imaan quits IHCBA positionin protest
Human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari has resigned from her position as the chairperson of the Islamabad High Court Bar Association's (IHCBA) committee on enforced disappearances. In a letter addressed to the IHCBA president on Monday, Mazari stated that she made the decision in protest against the "condemnable and cowardly" decision of the bar to withdraw its petitions against the 26th amendment and the transfer of judges to the Islamabad High Court (IHC). Expressing her disappointment and shock over the move, she said the decision compromised on the principled position taken by former IHCBA president Riasat Ali Azad.
Express Tribune
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Govt seeks dismissal of IHC judges' plea
The federal government on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the pleas against the transfer of judges to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and the subsequent changes in the seniority list. According to petitions filed by five IHC judges among others, the three transferred judges cannot be considered judges of the IHC until they have taken a fresh oath in accordance with Article 194 of the Constitution. In its response, the federal government sought the dismissal of the pleas as the three judges have been "transferred as per the constitution [and they] are not required to take new oath after transfer" as under Article 200, it did not mean a new appointment. "[The judges were transferred to] "bring transparency in judiciary, not affect judicial independence," read the response submitted by the Islamabad additional attorney general. "Article 200(1) deals with the power of the president to transfer judges from one high court to another, thereby attributing a clear permanence to the transfer," it contended. "No use of the term 'for such period' or 'during the period' in clause (1) of Article 200 clearly reflects that the transfer thereunder, unlike clause (3), [is] not in the nature of a temporary arrangement," the response added. "Permanency of transfer under Article 200(1) is also evident from the fact that to send the transferee judge back to his parent High Court, the President will have to follow the entire procedure provided under Article 200(1) again." Meanwhile, the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) has decided to withdraw its constitutional petition from the Supreme Court that challenged the transfer of three judges from other provincial high courts to the Islamabad High Court (IHC). According to a statement, an authority letter has been issued to the Advocate-on-Record, Anees Muhammad Shehzad, authorising the withdrawal of the petition. The decision was made during an executive committee meeting of the IHCBA, which concluded with a unanimous vote in favour of withdrawing the case. The statement signed by the IHCBA President Syed Wajid Ali Shah Gilani and Secretary Chaudhry Manzoor Ahmed Jajja noted that the decision to withdraw the petition was unanimous as the IHCBA is not an affected party in the case. It emphasized that the issue pertains to the seniority of judges, adding that the matter was being contested by the concerned judges themselves in the apex court. The matter is constitutional in nature and must be resolved through constitutional forums, the statement noted. The bar association clarified that the constitutional petition was initially filed in the Supreme Court without the approval of its executive body by a former president of the IHCBA. The executive committee, therefore, resolved unanimously to dissociate from the case and formally directed the withdrawal of the petition from the Supreme Court.
