CJ’s lawyers responsible for second reference, claims Zafar
By Our Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD, June 11: Lawyers defending Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry are responsible for the formulation of the second reference against him, says federal Law Minister Wasi Zafar.
The chief justice’s lawyers chose politics over law as a means of defence, and politicised the whole issue because they knew they did not have adequate legal defence, the minister said.
He said the government would not have prepared a new reference if the Chief Justice’s lawyers had not taken the ill-advised and politically-motivated step of filing his affidavit.
The law minister said in a statement that the three affidavits filed by the government contained “nothing but the whole truth”, and the government had been forced to react to the move initiated by the honourable Chief Justice.
“The government had not disclosed the facts earlier just because it wanted to save the judiciary’s honour and dignity. But after these fact were publicised, the government was constitutionally obligated to file a fresh reference,” Mr Zafar said.
The law minister said the Chief Justice’s lawyers were also responsible for all the post-reference acts and events, which “are part of the second reference”.
“Now they are once again attempting to avoid embarrassment by making political statements over a purely constitutional and legal matter as they are fully aware that they don’t have any legal defence,” he added.
Lawyers of the chief justice “have actually attempted to pressurise the whole society, courts, and the judiciary but they have failed miserably”, Mr Zafar said.
The law minister also accused the lawyers of misguiding the media and prompted it to violate the instructions issued by the apex court and the Supreme Judicial Council. The Chief Justice’s lawyers, he alleged, wanted to achieve their own political objectives even by putting ‘national interests at stake’.
Mr Zafar said that judicial norms, ethics and the national interest required the adoption of legal and constitutional ways in the matter but the Chief Justice’s lawyers intentionally flouted them.
