Imran Khan’s lawyer, Ali Zafar, expressed concerns during Supreme Court hearings, stating that the government is considering amendments to the Constitution, raising fears that the court might facilitate horse-trading. A five-member bench, led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, is reviewing the interpretation of Article 63A. The bench also includes Justices Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Mazhar Alam Miankhel.
At the beginning of the hearing, Zafar indicated that his client, Imran Khan, wishes to speak directly to the court via video link. When Chief Justice Isa asked Zafar to begin his arguments, he insisted that Khan should first present his submissions before he would continue with his case.
Zafar stated that Khan had objections regarding the bench’s composition, and if Khan was not allowed to appear via video link, he wanted to raise certain points in court. The Chief Justice reminded him that, as a lawyer, he also had responsibilities as an officer of the court.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel commented that they had all been lawyers too but adhered to the law rather than merely following their clients’ wishes.
Zafar further contended that if Khan was not permitted to speak, he would withdraw from the proceedings, arguing that the government aimed to push through amendments. In response, the Chief Justice noted that Zafar was making politically charged statements likely intended to generate headlines. Zafar cited a newspaper article asserting that constitutional amendments were necessary before October 25.
Zafar also claimed that the government intends to introduce a constitutional amendment, leading to concerns that the court might facilitate horse-trading. The Chief Justice cautioned Zafar that such comments could be viewed as contempt of court, emphasizing the need for mutual respect in the courtroom. He remarked, “You are making a very loaded statement by mentioning horse-trading. If we were to explain what that entails, it might embarrass you.”
PTI Withdraws from Proceedings
Zafar declared that the verdict on Article 63A prevents horse-trading. Justice Mandokhel responded by noting that the court had issued an opinion on Article 63A rather than a binding decision. Zafar announced that PTI would boycott the proceedings, claiming that Khan felt the bench composition was improper.
Supreme Court Appoints Zafar as Judicial Assistant
Zafar conveyed to the Chief Justice that hearing the case could lead to a conflict of interest. The Chief Justice stated that the court would neither accept nor record Zafar’s remarks. The court then designated Zafar as a judicial assistant, after which he reiterated that Khan viewed the bench as illegitimate, questioning the point of continuing the proceedings.
The Chief Justice encouraged Zafar to proceed with his arguments, assuring him that the court was open to any outcome, including the possibility of rejecting the review application. Zafar explained that the President had sought an opinion regarding Article 63A, arguing that a review could not be filed against such an opinion, and only the President could approach the court for clarification. Chief Justice Isa noted that PTI had also submitted an application in this context.
Zafar responded that they sought lifetime disqualification for floor-crossing, which the court had stated could be addressed through legislation. The Chief Justice inquired whether the judges who issued the previous ruling on Article 63A had referred to it as an opinion or a decision. Zafar replied that it was for the court to determine this distinction. The Chief Justice then asked if this meant Zafar supported changing the term “judgment” to “opinion.”
Justice Mandokhel pointed out that he and Justice Miankhel had been part of the earlier bench, yet no objections had been raised against them at that time.
Follow us on our social media platforms here: Twitter WHATSAPP CHANNEL FACEBOOK PAGE
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.