#khabar #mohammadmalick #pti #imrankhan #fawadchaudhry #justiceyahyaafridi #chiefjustice #supremecourt #pmshehbazsharif #nawazsharif #asifzardari #asimmunir #bilawalbhutto
(Current Affairs)
Host:
- Muhammad Malick
Guests:
- Fawad Chaudhry (Senior Leader)
- Barrister Saad Rasool (Lawyer)
- Justice (R) Shaiq Usmani (Senior Lawyer)
"PTI Kabhi Nahi Chori...", Fawad Chaudhry's Big Statement
Pakistani Politics and Judiciary - Mohammad Malick's Important Report
Follow the ARY News channel on WhatsApp: https://bit.ly/46e5HzY
Subscribe to our channel and press the bell icon for latest news updates: http://bit.ly/3e0SwKP
ARY News is a leading Pakistani news channel that promises to bring you factual and timely international stories and stories about Pakistan, sports, entertainment, and business, amid others.
(Current Affairs)
Host:
- Muhammad Malick
Guests:
- Fawad Chaudhry (Senior Leader)
- Barrister Saad Rasool (Lawyer)
- Justice (R) Shaiq Usmani (Senior Lawyer)
"PTI Kabhi Nahi Chori...", Fawad Chaudhry's Big Statement
Pakistani Politics and Judiciary - Mohammad Malick's Important Report
Follow the ARY News channel on WhatsApp: https://bit.ly/46e5HzY
Subscribe to our channel and press the bell icon for latest news updates: http://bit.ly/3e0SwKP
ARY News is a leading Pakistani news channel that promises to bring you factual and timely international stories and stories about Pakistan, sports, entertainment, and business, amid others.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Assalam-o-Alaikum, you are watching Khabar Lahariya, I am Ahmad Malik.
00:15The good news is that we were just seeing that the Pakistan team has made a very strong comeback.
00:20And it seems that, God willing, the Pakistan team will win the match against South Africa.
00:24A very hard-pitched battle is going on.
00:27Anyway, what is the second news?
00:30Imran Khan is writing his third letter.
00:32He has written two letters.
00:34And it is a very interesting letter because it is such a hard-hitting letter that
00:37all the allegations are coming against the person who is writing the letter.
00:41And maybe they are expecting relief from him.
00:44So, not surprisingly, we have not received any response from there.
00:48In fact, the reactions that have come so far, we have received some negative reactions.
00:51Then, the delegation of the IMF has also come.
00:54And you remember that they spoke to the Supreme Court Chief Justice.
00:57There is a lot of criticism in that too.
00:59There are other circles.
01:00They say that if the IMF mission had to be briefed, then the Attorney General of Pakistan should have done it.
01:05Not the Chief Justice of Pakistan.
01:07Anyway, but there is a twist in that too.
01:10A dossier and a detailed letter, the PTI has written to the IMF again.
01:16And maybe this is the same copy of the letter that was sent to the Chief Justice of Pakistan about three or four hundred pages ago.
01:24When I was talking to the other circle, they said that the initial reaction has come very adverse.
01:30They said, look, you remember in the time of the IMF,
01:33Mr. Shaukat Tareen was telling his finance ministers in KP that talk to the IMF, write this letter.
01:39Now the IMF has come again.
01:41So the PTI is again compromising national interest for its own political interest.
01:46Is this really the case?
01:48Is all this going on here?
01:50In the meantime, the war of the judiciary has begun.
01:55There was a time when there was a war of the judiciary with the executive.
01:59There was a war of the executive with the judiciary.
02:01Sometimes both together with the army, sometimes the army together with the third.
02:04Now what is the interesting situation?
02:06The judiciary is fighting with the judiciary.
02:08The executive of the judiciary is fighting with the judiciary.
02:11The judiciary is fighting with the opposition.
02:13It's a vicious circle.
02:14Everybody is fighting everyone.
02:16Today, Amir Farooq's verdict has also been released in detail.
02:20In which he rejected the representation of five judges,
02:24who had objected to Justice Afzal Dogar.
02:26You brought him from Lahore, the judge of the 15th seniority.
02:29And you made him a senior judge.
02:31He said that the law is silent on this.
02:33The law is only speaking on transfers.
02:36The law is silent on this.
02:38But two days ago, we heard the comment of the Chief Justice of Pakistan,
02:41Justice Fareedi, when he said to the journalists,
02:44that I have given my opinion.
02:46And the transfer and seniority are being mixed.
02:50And now that I have told my mind in this matter,
02:53I will not sit on this case.
02:55I spoke to one of the five judges.
02:58When I found out, he said that they are challenging it in the Supreme Court.
03:03In the meantime, the differences have come to the point,
03:05that today, the law and judiciary had a dinner.
03:08For Justice Dogar, for Justice Amir Farooq,
03:11who has been elevated to the Supreme Court.
03:13The acting judges nominated by Hassan Aurangzeb.
03:16These five judges, who had written a letter,
03:19did not participate in this dinner.
03:21So, everything is out in the open.
03:23Will this matter continue,
03:25if in the country, the judiciary is fighting each other,
03:28and serious questions are being raised on non-binding.
03:32We will talk about the politics of PTI.
03:35We have joined us by Mr. Fawad Chaudhary,
03:37former Federal Minister of Information.
03:39Senior.
03:40Are you in PTI or not?
03:42How can I introduce you?
03:44I am in PTI.
03:45You have returned.
03:46Yes, you meet Mr. Khan.
03:47I have not gone.
03:48You have not gone.
03:49Okay.
03:50Reinstated PTI leader.
03:52Mr. Saad Rasool, Political and Legal Analyst.
03:55And in the meantime, we will talk to Mr. Shaikh Usmani,
03:58on the legal issue.
03:59First of all, tell me,
04:01you met Mr. Imran Khan today.
04:03Yes.
04:04You did not respond to the first two letters.
04:06Why are you writing the third letter?
04:08Yesterday, Salman Akram Raja was at my show.
04:11And he said,
04:12we are writing this letter for the people.
04:15So that the people know everything.
04:17I said,
04:18the letter you write,
04:19you use such harsh language in it.
04:21The one who is writing the letter,
04:22he says,
04:23because of you,
04:24the differences between the army and the people are increasing.
04:27The army has subordinates.
04:28A certain colonel is sitting.
04:30He is sitting on the tip of his shoes in the court.
04:32He is appointed in the court.
04:34How do these help matters?
04:36Now, what will be different in the third letter?
04:38No.
04:39The letter he has written today,
04:40it surrounds the issues of Pakistan.
04:43Why is the economy like this?
04:45The rule of law is ruined.
04:47What has the 26th amendment done?
04:49In corruption, by the way,
04:50we have increased two more levels.
04:52The report of Amnesty International has come today.
04:54We are progressing in corruption.
04:56I think the Amnesty International people
04:58do not know about the new properties
05:00that have been purchased in Portugal.
05:02Otherwise, it would have gone up by two degrees.
05:05You know that.
05:07At the moment,
05:08in Imran Khan,
05:09I agree with Salman Raja that
05:11when you create content
05:13and the media talks,
05:15basically one thing happens
05:17that you get help in narrative building.
05:19The second issue is that
05:21what you are talking about,
05:23you are talking harshly.
05:25We are stuck in this.
05:27Look, it is a simple thing.
05:29There is no relaxation from there.
05:33Then in response,
05:34there is no relaxation from here either.
05:36And this is the problem of Pakistan at the moment
05:39that we are stuck in this hard tone
05:42which has to be brought down.
05:44Tell me this,
05:45if it were a romance,
05:46if it were a romance,
05:47would you write a threatening letter
05:49to your objective?
05:51To take their favor,
05:53or would you talk to them
05:55in a softly worded way?
05:57What kind of political romance is this?
05:59It is not from both sides.
06:00From there also,
06:01there is no soft action.
06:03The people who are picked up,
06:05who are tortured,
06:06because of that,
06:07the temperature is high.
06:08The problem is that
06:09these words are fine,
06:11but actions actually matter more.
06:14What will be the benefit of writing to the IMF?
06:16The IMF is only coming up with structural reforms.
06:18They are asking for the implementation
06:20of contractual guarantees.
06:21The IMF has asked for it.
06:23No, no.
06:24You sent them.
06:25You sent them the contract.
06:26No, no.
06:27The thing is that
06:28the governance program
06:29that they have signed with the IMF,
06:31in that,
06:32the IMF has to review 3-4 things.
06:35One, they have to review the judiciary.
06:37They have to review the election commission.
06:39They have to review the state of democracy.
06:41Right now,
06:42one is going on.
06:43Then in April,
06:44they have to come back again.
06:45And then in July,
06:46they have to write the entire report.
06:48So, the IMF has to tell
06:50that it is a part of the mandate
06:52that the government has given to the IMF.
06:54If the government didn't give it,
06:55then they wouldn't have written the report.
06:57Then why did the Chief Justice get it?
06:59It is being said that
07:00the Attorney General should have briefed,
07:02but the Chief Justice didn't get it.
07:04So, tell me,
07:05the head of the biggest political party in Pakistan
07:08didn't give his point of view,
07:10and the Chief Justice gave it to Pakistan?
07:12This is an anomaly.
07:13That's why,
07:14I think,
07:15the PTI,
07:16which is writing the dossier today,
07:18has a political right,
07:20and the agreement...
07:21Will something happen with this?
07:22Do you feel any...
07:23What will happen with this?
07:24Look, the IMF...
07:25They will put another tag on this.
07:26Look, they have already called the IMF,
07:28what did they do?
07:29Now, the IMF has caught the dossier.
07:31What did they do?
07:32This is always against Pakistan's national interest.
07:34What is the IMF or World Bank?
07:36Basically, it is America.
07:37Let's see what policy they make.
07:39If they want to favor,
07:40then let them favor.
07:41Secondly,
07:42you have always said that
07:43this should become a grand alliance,
07:45politically.
07:46And it has become.
07:47It has become very active.
07:48But the interesting thing is that
07:50Maulana Fazl-ud-Din is a very key person.
07:52You have raised two major objections.
07:55The 26th amendment,
07:57that it has destroyed the judiciary.
07:59He voted in favour of that.
08:01Then, Mr. Khan,
08:02and the rest of the people,
08:03the Ayni Bench,
08:04they have destroyed the Ayn.
08:06So, Maulana,
08:07have you heard what was said at the Ayni Bench?
08:10The Ayni Bench was made.
08:12Although our idea was of the Constitutional Court,
08:15but still,
08:16the beginning of it is not bad.
08:19If it is allowed to run,
08:20then I think it will be better.
08:21It will come to light.
08:22It takes time to bring it to the standard.
08:24And my benefits and my opposition,
08:26it keeps happening.
08:28Although,
08:29because there was no 26th amendment,
08:31we removed 53 things,
08:32but passed it.
08:33The Ayni court was needed,
08:35the bench was found,
08:36but it should be allowed to run.
08:37So,
08:38it seems that he is playing both sides of the fence.
08:40It is a critical element for you.
08:42So, if there is such a difference between these two key elements,
08:45how will it work?
08:46No, it will work.
08:47It is not an issue.
08:48When I met Maulana,
08:50I asked him,
08:51why are you not participating in the government?
08:54It is a simple thing.
08:55Maulana wants to take over the government.
08:57And in front of you,
08:58Shahbaz Sharif,
08:59he said that
09:00there is a lot of distance between the government and the people.
09:03Now,
09:04there are two mistakes of the PTI here.
09:06PTI,
09:07first,
09:08we delayed it by six months.
09:10And it should have been concluded by six months.
09:12After that,
09:13Maulana said that
09:14the Constitutional Benches,
09:16for example,
09:17on 26th January,
09:18he said that
09:19the PTI brought this proposal.
09:20The draft of the Constitutional Benches
09:22was not shared by the PTI.
09:24So, when it came,
09:25it should have remained till the end.
09:27They should have told us that it is not there.
09:29Then,
09:30the second complaint he made,
09:31which I agree with Maulana,
09:32it is justified,
09:33he said that
09:34you said that
09:35we will not talk to the Non-Legal People's Party.
09:37One day,
09:38we woke up in the morning
09:39and found out that
09:40your conversation has started.
09:41So,
09:42you should not do this.
09:43Whether it is Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman,
09:44Hafiz Naeem-ur-Rehman,
09:45GDA,
09:46or Haqqan Abbasi,
09:48these are political parties.
09:50They are not NGOs.
09:51If you want to bring PTI,
09:53these people together,
09:55then you have to bring them
09:56in a political package.
09:59It is not that
10:00all of them sit at home.
10:01And then,
10:02earlier,
10:03this was not done.
10:04Then,
10:05I said to Mr. Khan,
10:06I said,
10:07look,
10:08we have fought with the establishment,
10:09it is fine.
10:10We have fought with the government parties,
10:11it is fine.
10:12We have decided
10:13that this is not enough.
10:14We have to fight
10:15with all the opposition parties.
10:17So,
10:18this is not the way to fight.
10:19So,
10:20did you talk about the fights
10:21within the party?
10:22They keep on going within the party.
10:23Irfan,
10:24Irfan Marwad,
10:25Afzal,
10:26Sher Afzal Marwad,
10:27what are you listening to?
10:28They are taking him out.
10:29Then,
10:30they took out
10:31Ali Ming Gandapur.
10:32So,
10:33the leader who was
10:34the opposite of him,
10:35they made Junaid Akbar.
10:36Mr. Khan,
10:37do they keep on playing games?
10:38What is this?
10:39There are big groups
10:40within the party.
10:41They keep on playing games.
10:42There is no issue.
10:43Mr. Sher Afzal Marwad
10:44has the same issue.
10:45He is sitting quietly
10:46and he will settle down.
10:47What is the issue?
10:48It was going on there.
10:49PTV has taken him out.
10:50The second thing is
10:51that they are taking him out lightly.
10:52PTV is one step ahead.
10:53PTV is one step ahead.
10:54By the way,
10:55personally,
10:56my personal opinion
10:57is that
10:58let them keep on going.
10:59Let them fight.
11:00Now,
11:01let us come to
11:02the sensitive subject.
11:03Mr. Bilgit Saad,
11:04your benefit is that
11:05you are a lawyer as well.
11:06Please come.
11:07There is an impression
11:08in Pakistan
11:09that the judiciary
11:10is completely
11:11under the control
11:12of the executive.
11:13And the judges
11:14have been appointed.
11:15There are many senior judges
11:16who have come.
11:17Four high court judges
11:18have come.
11:19There are two other
11:20senior judges as well.
11:21Stacking.
11:22You have given
11:23a big concession.
11:24I will say that
11:25in PECA.
11:26You have given
11:27a wrong fact.
11:28The situation in PECA
11:29is that
11:30they are issuing
11:31notices
11:32based on their opinion.
11:33We will do a show
11:34on this as well
11:35in detail.
11:36Anyway,
11:37this is the session
11:38and the biggest objection
11:39is that
11:40the judges
11:41themselves
11:42because the way
11:43judges have played
11:44a role,
11:45it was not
11:46done by
11:47the executive.
11:48For example,
11:49when the judges
11:50were transferred,
11:51if the Chief Justice
11:52of Pakistan
11:53had refused,
11:54then without
11:55their consent,
11:56these transfers
11:57would not have
11:58been possible.
11:59If the Supreme
12:00Court's elevation,
12:01as the four Supreme
12:02Court judges
12:03have written,
12:04that let the
12:0526th amendment
12:06be decided,
12:07after that
12:08the judges
12:09would not
12:10have been
12:11appointed.
12:12The thing is
12:13that the
12:14controversy
12:15is that
12:16the judges
12:17themselves,
12:18we are not
12:19saying right
12:20or wrong,
12:21but their active
12:22participation,
12:23and today
12:24I was reading
12:25an article,
12:26I will tell you
12:27the name,
12:28but I liked
12:29the sentence
12:30in which it
12:31was written
12:32a judiciary
12:33divided against
12:34itself.
12:35And in this
12:36country,
12:37the work
12:38that started
12:39in the 2000s,
12:40I just want to
12:41show you a few
12:42glimpses,
12:43so that I
12:44can put it in
12:45context,
12:46that what is
12:47the issue
12:48between the
12:49judiciary and
12:50the politics
12:51of Pakistan,
12:52because the
12:53issue of both
12:54and their
12:55relationship
12:56directly has
12:57a topic
12:58implication for
12:59us.
13:00Listen to
13:01this,
13:02see this
13:03package.
13:07Pakistan
13:08is
13:09responsible
13:10for the
13:11destruction
13:12of Pakistan.
13:13This
13:14gang of
13:15five did
13:16this to me,
13:17they did
13:18this to the
13:19country.
13:20A group
13:21of five
13:22can be
13:23seen,
13:24which
13:25can be
13:26seen on
13:27the screen
13:28today,
13:29this is
13:30the responsibility
13:31of the
13:32situation
13:33of Pakistan.
13:34In the
13:35service of
13:36the
13:37country,
13:38I would
13:39like to
13:40say that
13:41in the
13:42time of
13:43Nawaz Sharif,
13:44there were
13:45many
13:46cases of
13:47bail.
13:48Today,
13:49day and
13:50night,
13:51there are
13:52suggestions
13:53on how
13:54to
13:55get rid
13:56of all
13:57the
13:58crimes
13:59based on
14:00bail.
14:01Just like
14:02the judiciary
14:03had decided
14:04that the
14:05Supreme Court
14:06should
14:07go ahead
14:08and
14:09make
14:10decisions.
14:11There is
14:12a lot of
14:13pressure
14:14on the
14:15courts.
14:16Tomorrow,
14:17when the
14:18judgement
14:19will be
14:20written,
14:21the same
14:22judge will
14:23be there
14:24who will
14:25make their
14:26grandchildren
14:27and
14:28grandchildren
14:29their
14:30pride or
14:31disgrace.
14:32If justice
14:33solidifies
14:34then
14:35the
14:36court
14:37will
14:38not
14:39listen to
14:40our
14:41cases.
14:42There is
14:43a
14:44psychiatric
14:45institution
14:46where
14:47there are
14:48judges
14:49who have
14:50ruled
14:51this
14:52country
14:53for the
14:54last
14:5510-12
14:56years.
14:57From
14:58the PM
14:59to the
15:00Prime
15:01Minister,
15:02they were
15:03the
15:04judges
15:05who
15:06ruled
15:07this
15:08country
15:09for
15:10the
15:11last
15:1210-12
15:13years.
15:14There
15:15is
15:16a
15:17lot
15:18of
15:19pressure
15:20on
15:21the
15:22courts
15:23to
15:24make
15:25their
15:26decisions.
15:27The
15:28Supreme
15:29Court
15:30is
15:31not
15:32just
15:33a
15:34judge
15:35but
15:36a
15:37judge
15:38who
15:39is
15:40a
15:41judge
15:42of
15:43the
15:44Supreme
15:45Court.
15:46You
15:47will
15:48hear
15:49the
15:50Supreme
15:51Court
15:52is
15:53each
15:54and
15:55every
15:56judge
15:57not
15:58just
15:59each
16:00judge.
16:01If each judge is a court in itself, then there is a clear confusion.
16:07Saad, let's get you into it.
16:09This is a dismal state of affairs.
16:12I always like to give credit to the person who wrote this article.
16:16Shahab Ustad's article in Don, a very beautiful sentence,
16:20he wrote,
16:21Judicially, presently and previously,
16:23has remained a house divided against itself.
16:26And now we can see that it still is.
16:29Now, all this drama of judges,
16:32will we be able to call this judiciary impartial?
16:36Perception, reality be damned.
16:38Hasn't perception been established yet?
16:41Look, I think, Mr. Malik,
16:43there is no possibility in this.
16:45No matter how much you stretch it,
16:47you can't stretch the judiciary to the standard of impartiality,
16:50at least to the standard of impartiality
16:52that the world judges the judiciary on.
16:58The problems that have been identified,
17:00by different politicians,
17:02be it the People's Party, the Law League or the PTI,
17:05is that at different times,
17:07and especially since the time of Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhary...
17:10One second, I'll have to interject you.
17:12He is saying to give a break,
17:14to tell the nation that Pakistan has won the South African match.
17:17So let's take a break.
17:19We'll resume after that.
17:27Welcome back to the show.
17:57As I was saying earlier,
17:59the law is silent.
18:01It talks about transfer.
18:03It doesn't talk about seniority.
18:05That's why these five judges,
18:07who have spoken,
18:09have thrown them out.
18:11The point is, is it that simple?
18:13Is the law silent?
18:15Or does the Chief Justice himself
18:17want to remain silent on this matter?
18:19We have with us the retired Justice,
18:21Mr. Shaikh Usmani,
18:23of the High Court.
18:25Sir, one question.
18:27Mr. Amir Farooq has decided
18:29that the law is silent.
18:31It only talks about transfer.
18:33It doesn't talk about seniority.
18:35Like the five judges
18:37of the Islamabad High Court
18:39and the four judges of the Supreme Court
18:41have said that the transfer is fine.
18:43The seniority will be the same as before.
18:45Is that correct?
18:47Well, look,
18:49the word seniority
18:51is written in the law.
18:53It's written in the law.
18:55And it's definitely written
18:57that I...
18:59For a...
19:01For a particular High Court.
19:03No, no.
19:05It's written for the judges
19:07of the High Court
19:09that I take oath to become a High Court judge,
19:11whatever it is,
19:13in the province of...
19:15Whatever it is.
19:17Or provinces.
19:19And after that it's written
19:21So, it has
19:23ambiguity.
19:25It's not that the court
19:27in which they will go,
19:29they will take the oath of that court.
19:31It's not written anywhere.
19:33It's written in the sign.
19:35So, then it's a very simple thing, sir.
19:37Then it's a very simple thing
19:39that when that oath is taken,
19:41then if it has to be decided
19:43on the basis of the provinces,
19:45then the same seniority
19:47should have been decided
19:49that the oath is particular to that province.
19:51Otherwise, if tomorrow
19:53a judge comes,
19:55then his seniority should be seen in his opinion.
19:57There are so many judges of the High Court
19:59in the whole of Pakistan.
20:01But his seniority is seen
20:03in that particular court.
20:05So, that doesn't cover that thing.
20:07I think the line is very clear on that.
20:09Oath is very clear.
20:11Yes, yes. The line is very clear.
20:13When a judge takes an oath,
20:15initially when he becomes a judge,
20:17and says that I am taking an oath
20:19in this court,
20:21his seniority starts from that day.
20:23Now, after that, if you transfer him
20:25somewhere else,
20:27then his seniority
20:29will be from the same date
20:31when he has taken the oath
20:33in this court.
20:35Because it is not possible that
20:37he will go to some other court.
20:39But, sir, he has given his safeguard.
20:41He said that his consent is required.
20:43If I am willing that I want to come to Islamabad
20:45and I want to give my seniority,
20:47then fine.
20:49Without my consent, no one can transfer me.
20:51So, if my seniority is decided
20:53in my hands,
20:55then there is no compulsion on that.
20:57No, no. Look here,
20:59in the 26th amendment,
21:01it is clearly written,
21:03in the current amendment,
21:05it is clearly written that
21:07the judge of the High Court,
21:09when you transfer him,
21:11his seniority will be the same
21:13as it is in his old court.
21:15It is written in it.
21:17So, you are saying that there is no ambiguity in this?
21:19No, there is no ambiguity.
21:21Thank you very much, Mr. Shaikh.
21:23I gave this opportunity to Mr. Shaikh
21:25because he has an opposing view.
21:27Yes, I would like to request that Mr. Shaikh
21:29has definitely said this and we learn
21:31from Mr. Shaikh Usmani. He has a lot of integrity.
21:33But he has definitely said that
21:35this is written in the 26th amendment.
21:37I have also read the 26th amendment.
21:39Maybe Mr. Fawad has also read it.
21:41There is no doubt that the transfer of Article 200
21:43is covered in the 26th amendment.
21:45With your permission,
21:47let us clarify this point.
21:49I will read the sentence of the oath.
21:53In the oath of the judge of the High Court,
21:55there are two blanks.
21:57By the way, all the oaths are written.
21:59First of all, I do solemnly swear
22:01that I will bear true faith and allegiance
22:03to Pakistan. I will remain loyal to Pakistan.
22:05That as judge of the High Court,
22:07for the province of
22:09province of blank.
22:11Now let us move forward
22:13with Mr. Shaikh's statement.
22:15If while taking the oath,
22:17he said for the province of Punjab
22:19and other provinces.
22:21So either he would have done it for the provinces of Pakistan.
22:23No, if it was for everyone,
22:25then he would have written for the provinces of Pakistan.
22:29The judge of Lahore High Court
22:31has no right to give
22:33any direction to the CDO.
22:35The judge of Lahore High Court cannot give direction to the CDO.
22:37The judge of Sindh High Court
22:39cannot give direction to the LDA.
22:41And the reason is that
22:43their judicial authority stops
22:45at the boundary of the province.
22:47Where the province ended,
22:49there judicial authority also ended.
22:51The letter of five judges of Islamabad High Court
22:53has a very simple thing in it.
22:55There is no objection to this
22:57that you can transfer
22:59a judge from one place to another under Article 200.
23:01In the name of Allah,
23:03they also have consent.
23:05But because
23:07in the original oath,
23:09he said that
23:11I am taking the oath of Lahore High Court.
23:13So in his oath,
23:15he has no authority to pass
23:17directions about Islamabad.
23:19Keeping this in mind,
23:21five judges of Islamabad High Court
23:23said that you must
23:25transfer, but you will take
23:27a fresh oath here.
23:29Interestingly,
23:31this has been tested three times.
23:33When this letter was written
23:35to Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court,
23:37Chief Justice of Lahore High Court
23:39and Chief Justice of Pakistan,
23:41they had a consultation with the President.
23:43No one knew what answer
23:45this question gave.
23:47When the President passed the notification,
23:49there was no answer
23:51that these are the reasons
23:53for which we are not covering.
23:55In the letter of Amir Farooq,
23:57it is written that
23:59there is no requirement of fresh oath
24:01to read Article 200,
24:03to read the oath,
24:05to read other powers,
24:07to read Provincial Autonomy
24:09because Subahi High Courts
24:11work under Provincial Autonomy.
24:13The autonomy of the province
24:15is restricted to the territory of the province.
24:17The legal, legal question
24:19raised by the five judges
24:21has not yet been answered
24:23in writing.
24:25So this is the case
24:27that they are challenging
24:29these people.
24:31What will happen then?
24:33The answer to this question
24:35is from the perspective
24:37of Independence of Judiciary.
24:39I have a request.
24:41Very quickly.
24:43There is only one test
24:45of the independence of the judge
24:47or the independence of the judiciary.
24:49As a judge,
24:51if I make a decision,
24:53will I have a consequence or not?
24:55When you test the 26th amendment
24:57then everyone knows
24:59that under this new system,
25:01if I, as a judge,
25:03make a decision against the government,
25:05then the government has a majority
25:07in the commission and in the committee.
25:09They used to say that
25:11if you do good,
25:13it will be good for you.
25:15You can't say independence
25:17because you are both
25:19a politician and a lawyer.
25:21Unfortunately,
25:23when Umar Tayyab Andayal
25:25became the Chief Justice of PTI,
25:27then Saqib Nisar
25:29became the Chief Justice of PTI,
25:31then Qazi Faizi
25:33became the Chief Justice
25:35of PMLN.
25:37Then there was
25:39Mr. Afridi.
25:41In the beginning,
25:43no one said anything.
25:45He was neutral.
25:47He had a good past.
25:49Now, he is also
25:51an anti-PTI.
25:53The Supreme Court
25:55is so confused.
25:57Don has written
25:59a beautiful article.
26:01He says that
26:03courts are being packed
26:05with like-minded judges
26:07so that the regime can secure
26:09legal endorsement for its widely criticized
26:11actions and policies.
26:13Ideally, this perception
26:15should not have been there.
26:17Instead, several judges
26:19have participated in the decision-making process.
26:21They have given a reason
26:23to the critics
26:25to criticize the present state of judiciary.
26:27Judiciary is in a bad state.
26:29Are senior judges
26:31responsible?
26:33What is their fault?
26:35The real problem
26:37is that
26:39there was an intervention
26:41in Pakistan's judiciary
26:43in the 1970s.
26:45The problem was that
26:47I know the judiciary
26:49very well.
26:53I met
26:55Shri Fudin Peerzada.
26:59He always spoke
27:01to the Chief Justice
27:03at the top level.
27:07Peerzada was our senior.
27:09You are also a
27:11great strategist.
27:13I have a good relationship with you.
27:15I just want to tell you
27:17that
27:19Mr. Musharraf
27:21used to speak
27:23to the Chief Justice
27:25at the top level.
27:27Now,
27:29the problem is that
27:31a low-level officer
27:33who is very basic
27:35goes to the High Court
27:37and tells the judge
27:39what to do.
27:41This devolution
27:43has destroyed everything.
27:45There are 13 judges
27:47and you should know
27:49how they are handled.
27:51They say that
27:53every system works well
27:55but the grassroots level
27:57has been destroyed.
27:59They have destroyed
28:01justice.
28:03Another important thing
28:05is that the Chief Justice
28:07has appointed 43 judges
28:09in the last three months.
28:11Where do 43 judges
28:13work in the world?
28:15The IMF
28:17has spent
28:193-5 lakh rupees
28:21on the judiciary
28:23because of the 43 judges.
28:25The IMF will not take back
28:27the money.
28:29The PTI government
28:31will come tomorrow
28:33and no one
28:35will take back this amendment.
28:37They will have to put a lot of effort
28:39to get it back.
28:41This suits
28:43every government.
28:45My friend
28:47Azam Tarar
28:49told me
28:51to get rid of
28:53the dirty work
28:55and take it back.
28:57Otherwise,
28:59you will be trapped.
29:01You know
29:03that Imran Khan
29:05won the election
29:07and that election was stolen.
29:09You gave a reference
29:11to Faiz Ishaq.
29:13We did not.
29:15Rana Sinhaullah
29:17said that there should be
29:19a reference against two people.
29:21I want to thank
29:23Rana Sinhaullah.
29:25He talked about a legal process.
29:27If he had said
29:29that we will lock
29:31both of them up
29:33and resign,
29:35we would have seen
29:37that no one is going back.
29:39The destruction
29:41that has spread
29:43and the superior judiciary
29:45is it that weak,
29:47incompetent,
29:49compromised?
29:51The biggest problem
29:53is how to define
29:55the superior judiciary.
29:57The Supreme Court
29:59is the supreme authority
30:01and the constitutional
30:03bench is the supreme court.
30:05What is the other problem?
30:07The Supreme Court will not
30:09decide on this issue.
30:11There is another problem.
30:13In the High Court,
30:15the case of Al-Jahat
30:17and Sajjad Ishaq was settled.
30:19Most of the senior judges
30:21were appointed.
30:23The problem is that
30:25the five or seven judges
30:27in the High Court
30:29are conspiring to appoint
30:31the Chief Justice.
30:33The senior judges
30:35in the High Court
30:37are conspiring to appoint
30:39the Chief Justice.
30:41In the High Court,
30:43the judiciary was divided
30:45and the judges were appointed
30:47in their respective chambers.
30:49In the High Court,
30:51the judiciary was divided
30:53and the judges were appointed
30:55in their respective chambers.
30:57In the High Court,
30:59the judiciary was divided
31:01and the judges were appointed
31:03in their respective chambers.
31:05In the High Court,
31:07the judiciary was divided
31:09and the judges were appointed
31:11in their respective chambers.
31:13In the High Court,
31:15the judiciary was divided
31:17and the judges were appointed
31:19in their respective chambers.
31:21....
31:23....
31:25....
31:27....
31:29....
31:31....
31:33.....
31:35....
31:37There is no way to deny that idea.
31:39There is no doubt that I will not just call it Judiciary, but Judiciary and Legal Fraternity.
31:45In the past, especially after the Al-Jihad Trust, whenever Pakistan…
31:50So, let's set a principle first.
31:53The standard of independence of Judiciary in our jurisprudence has been that
31:57no judge should worry about his job while making his decisions.
32:02This is the standard of independence of Judiciary.
32:04Whether he makes a good decision or a bad decision,
32:07he will not worry about his job.
32:09It will not affect his progression.
32:11It will not affect which case he will hear.
32:13If he makes a bad decision, then he will be removed under Article 209.
32:17But there is a discussion now that the promotion and elevation of judges
32:21is in the hands of the executive.
32:23I am requesting that the real challenge for independence is that
32:31now the judges will think about their progression while making decisions.
32:35If I make a decision against the government of the time,
32:37what will happen to me in the future?
32:39Let me ask you a very blunt question.
32:41I usually don't do it, because you people have taken a risk in this business.
32:46You are lawyers.
32:47But when Yair Afridi came, there was a great sense of optimism
32:51because he had a sterling record.
32:53And I myself welcomed this.
32:55But unfortunately, I think he is not walking the talk.
32:59No, no.
33:00The other thing is that he has done a lot of injustice.
33:02Three years later, you had to become the Chief Justice.
33:04The principle was going on.
33:05What was the need for three years?
33:07When you came above a wrong principle, then the matter was over.
33:11Even after that, actually, justice came.
33:14Two or three days ago, he spoke to the reporters.
33:18He spoke to the reporters.
33:20At that time, he said a lot of positive things.
33:22I will uphold this and everything.
33:24Then he also criticized that if these two judges had not risen up
33:28from the Judicial Commission meeting, then so and so judge would have risen up.
33:32And if they don't sit down and don't listen to the corporate cases,
33:35then I will have to call Gulhasan.
33:37Gulhasan's story is going on in the market.
33:39Because people thought that he was more pro-PTI.
33:42No, no, not PTI, he is pro-independent.
33:45Oh, in our country, there is so much colonization
33:47that if you don't have a government, then you are pro-PTI.
33:50Which is unfair.
33:51But this is a fact.
33:52He is progressive, independent-minded, whatever.
33:55And if he wanted, then there would have been no transfers.
33:58If he had not played the ball, then there would have been no promotions,
34:02elevations to the Supreme Court, which could have been avoidable.
34:05My question is that a lot of people have asked me,
34:07whenever politicians come to you,
34:10is Justice Yahya Afridi walking the talk?
34:13Sir, I will only say two things after Pika.
34:17If it walks like a duck, if it talks like a duck, then it's a duck.
34:23Justice Yahya Afridi had great hopes in the past,
34:26and he will have great hopes in the future as well.
34:28But those hopes are diminishing day by day.
34:31The real hope, Mr. Fawad is absolutely right,
34:33Mr. Fawad is absolutely right,
34:35that he came as a beneficiary of the system.
34:37But the hope came from this.
34:39You will remember, the day he took the oath,
34:41he called his six judges from Islamabad High Court for the first meeting.
34:45And told them to make independent decisions.
34:47I will ensure that there will be no interference.
34:50There was hope from this, that perhaps this new time,
34:55will be different from the time of Mr. Faiz Issa,
34:57and the judiciary will make some decisions,
34:59in which the government will also have to face difficulties.
35:02After this event, people gave him some credit,
35:05and gave him some space to see what happens.
35:07Why did he talk about jail reform,
35:09why did he put Khadija Shah in the committee, and other things.
35:11One second, one second.
35:12You talked about Khadija Shah, because I criticized her.
35:15That day, on the first day, I thought something was wrong.
35:18You should also be included in this.
35:20She is a member of your party.
35:22Khadija Shah is an under-trial prisoner.
35:25Then she was released on bail.
35:28But she was accused of being a convict, and her case is still going on.
35:31If the Chief Justice of Pakistan,
35:33will put a convict or a convict,
35:35in his own reform committee.
35:37I remember, the day it was announced,
35:39the next day also there was a hearing in his ADC.
35:41Yes.
35:42How can the law judiciary make independent decisions in that?
35:46Can a Chief Justice, a sitting Chief Justice,
35:48regardless of who he is.
35:50Ahad Cheema is also like that.
35:52Ahad Cheema has suffered enough.
35:54No, there are some appeals going on.
35:56So that is also wrong?
35:57Yes.
35:58Should the under-trial people,
36:00the Chief Justice of Pakistan,
36:02be included in their own reform committee?
36:04How can it be justified?
36:05I think they wrote a letter, and they called them.
36:07Whoever wrote the letter, they called them.
36:09This is not possible.
36:11This is not possible.
36:13I remember,
36:15in 1978-79,
36:17I was listening on the radio,
36:19Radio Australia was going on.
36:21The judge was saying that,
36:23the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Australia,
36:25called a judicial magistrate.
36:27And this guy was supposed to be one of the authors,
36:29of the constitution and something like that.
36:31And he said a sentence,
36:33a case of a friend of his was going on.
36:35He asked,
36:37how is my friend's case going on?
36:39He didn't say to help him,
36:41he just mentioned my friend.
36:43Ultimately, because of that thing,
36:45the Chief Justice had to resign.
36:47You are saying that,
36:49if someone writes a letter to the Chief Justice,
36:51then the Chief Justice should call him and put him in the committee.
36:53You are the accused.
36:55Just because he is from the PTI.
36:57This is the problem.
36:59You don't take the principal stance.
37:01Because the PTI has been put in.
37:03Both have been put in.
37:05Both have been put in.
37:07Why are you defending?
37:09This is right.
37:11Sir, this accommodating thing,
37:13what has happened?
37:15Sir, you have given a small talk,
37:17but you have given a big talk.
37:19Please allow me to speak a little further.
37:21This is right.
37:23There are a lot of cases going on in the Supreme Court.
37:25I understand.
37:27I will speak a little further.
37:29We are not even filing a case.
37:31Now the problem is that,
37:33the decisions will be made later.
37:35Now you file a case,
37:37you will remember,
37:39on the morning of 27th November,
37:4126th November,
37:43was a harrowing night in Islamabad.
37:45On the morning of 27th November,
37:47in the newspaper,
37:49the picture of the Chief Justice
37:51was that,
37:53he met a committee of jail reforms in Peshawar.
37:55This is a part of the record.
37:57He made so much of a reference to this,
37:59that on the very critical day,
38:01he was doing a meeting on this.
38:03After this,
38:05this committee,
38:07which included Khadija Shah,
38:09when they wrote a letter,
38:11that we do not have access in Diyala,
38:13despite the Chief Justice's order,
38:15they were not able to complete
38:17their pet project.
38:19This is their weakness,
38:21that you started a pet project.
38:23See, whether you like it or not.
38:25And now you have been criticized.
38:27Whether you like it or not,
38:29when Saqib Nisar...
38:31Sir, I am against this.
38:33They are listening to you,
38:35and it is a pet project,
38:37and they do not have the authority
38:39to make a committee in Diyala.
38:41The officer that Imran Khan
38:43was talking about,
38:45he also fired the Chief Justice.
38:47See, if we look at the past
38:49of the Chief Justice,
38:51whether you like it or not,
38:53when Saqib Nisar started
38:55building the dam,
38:57people did not agree.
38:59But because he was the Chief Justice,
39:01he started a pet project,
39:03and he completed it.
39:05I have a request to Mr. Yahya Freedi,
39:07as a lawyer,
39:09a lawyer who has been
39:11in the court...
39:13Sir, there are only a few minutes left.
39:15The damage is done.
39:17What is the perception?
39:19The perception is that
39:21the government has won,
39:23the judiciary has grown,
39:25the High Courts have been controlled,
39:27the Supreme Court has been controlled,
39:29everything will go to the Supreme Court.
39:31If Pekha becomes the Chief Justice,
39:33we will also go to the Supreme Court.
39:35We had already told you that
39:37Mr. Amiruddin will become the Chief Justice.
39:39I think the case will be open
39:41and you will know.
39:43We have a serious crisis in Pakistan.
39:45I don't think politics can improve,
39:47or the economy.
39:49Nothing if the judiciary doesn't work out.
39:51What will happen now?
39:53Is it a gone case?
39:55Because if the judges work without
39:57thinking, what will happen?
39:59The main issue is that
40:01the mother of all systems is the political system.
40:03When it has been derailed,
40:05everything has been shaken.
40:07Now you have made the election wrong.
40:09To save the fraud,
40:11you had to end the Election Commission.
40:13To save that, you had to end the High Courts.
40:15To end the High Courts,
40:17you had to end the Supreme Court.
40:19Now you have ended the Supreme Court.
40:21What happens in a conflict resolution?
40:23You make institutions for conflict resolution.
40:25You have ended all the doors.
40:27Now the problem is
40:29where are we going in Pakistan?
40:31Where is our direction?
40:33Like you said,
40:35I go to 10 people in these cases.
40:37They are not filing a case.
40:39They say, leave it.
40:41Jail is fine.
40:43They are not filing a bail.
40:45I asked Umar Cheema
40:47why they are not filing a bail.
40:49He said, leave it.
40:51He said, leave it.
40:53I will finish the file.
40:55Even if they are finished,
40:57they can file a case.
40:59I am talking about Umar Cheema.
41:01This is the perception of hundreds of people.
41:03This is horrible.
41:05The kind of system you have created.
41:07There are 2 ways.
41:09It is true.
41:11Earlier,
41:13the House divided against itself.
41:15There are 2 ways to correct the system.
41:171st way is
41:19to fill a full court
41:51I will take his name later.
41:53Sir, I have a request.
41:55No, he was more honourable.
41:57Sharifuddin was more honourable.
41:59What has the Attorney General done to him?
42:01He is tall and we can't talk to him.
42:03Sir, I have a request.
42:05He is our brother but he is very shy.
42:07He is your brother but you are talking like brothers.
42:09He is very shy.
42:11Sir, I have a request.
42:13I hoped that the judiciary would
42:15correct this issue on the judicial side
42:17the 26th amendment, the issue of seniority
42:19then people's judiciary
42:21will have some hope.
42:23The issue is that if the PTI
42:25does the impossible
42:27to give back its power
42:29to end the 26th amendment
42:31even then the judiciary's
42:33honour will not be saved.
42:35People will say that when you
42:37were forced, you lied.
42:39Very good point.
42:41It is very important that the judiciary
42:43does something about it.
42:45If this issue is solved politically
42:47then there will be no trust in the judiciary.
42:49Don't say such things.
42:51Anyway, we have run out of time.
42:53I think that if politics is correct
42:55then things will move forward
42:57otherwise we are stuck.
42:59We are stuck.
43:01We are stuck indeed.
43:03Thank you both very much.
43:05Let's take a break.
43:11Welcome back.
43:13It seems that the powerful people
43:15in the world
43:17unfortunately do not think
43:19about their decisions
43:21and their long-term consequences.
43:23It is just a matter of today
43:25that my tenure should be correct
43:27and what will happen to the system
43:29and the country.
43:31I would like to end on a line
43:33from a beautiful editorial of Don.
43:35Alas, with reason and rationality
43:37in retreat, reflections
43:39on actions and consequences
43:41no longer seem to matter.
43:43We can only hope for sense and sensibility.
43:45You are right.
43:47When your reason and rationality
43:49retreat completely
43:51and you don't think about your consequences
43:53then this is the destruction.
43:55We can only hope that the people
43:57who are in power right now
43:59think beyond themselves
44:01whether it is the Chief Justice
44:03or the Prime Minister
44:05or Imran Khan or the Army Chief
44:07or whoever can influence the events.
44:09God is a consequence of your every action
44:11and you don't pay the consequences
44:13but we do.
44:15Goodbye.