March 17, 2007	Saturday	Safar 27, 1428

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

NEW YORK, March 16: Pakistan was in the midst of “one of the worst judicial crises”, according to former law minister Senator S.M. Zafar.He was talking to Pakistani journalists here on Friday.

However, he declined to comment on ‘charges’ against ‘non-functional’ Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, saying the matter was sub judice.

“The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) has taken cognizance of the (presidential) reference, therefore, it will not be appropriate to make any comments on the merits of a sub judice matter,” he said in response to reporters’ questions.

However, he said: “I hope that Chief Justice Chaudhry will be able to clear himself of the charges, some of which may require clarification.”

Mr Zafar, who was in New York to represent Pakistan in a seminar of the Inter-parliamentary Union (IPU) at the United Nations, later visited Toronto to address the Pakistan-Canada Association.

Mr Zafar, considered to be an expert on law and constitutional affairs, was very cautious in answering questions.

He said: “I am grossly saddened that the judiciary is facing one of its worst crisis after having hardly come out of a previously equally bad situation when a bench of the Supreme Court declared the notification of their own CJ as (being) without lawful authority.”

Asked if he would take up the government’s case, he said: “Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry has been my associate in my cases at Quetta and in a way he belongs to my chamber. I am not qualified to any way deal with his case.”

Questioned about reports of maltreatment of Chief Justice Chaudhry, Mr Zafar said: “I am not aware of the whole facts, but Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry is entitled to protocol as a CJ because the president made him ‘dysfunctional’ only for the purpose of allowing the SJC to proceed.”

Mr Zafar said: “The SJC is so constituted that Chief Justice is to be the head of this body. Obviously, if the Chief Justice is himself the respondent in a proceeding, which is against him, he then cannot and would not be heading the council.

“This certainly would require an interpretation as to whether Chief Justice mentioned in Article 209 would be the incumbent Chief Justice or an acting Chief Justice notified under Article 180 to fill the gap till the proceedings against the incumbent Chief Justice are completed. I am sure the presently constituted SJC will first examine this vital issue.”