ISLAMABAD: His propensity to get involved in bitter exchanges and outbursts with Supreme Court judges finally cost senior lawyer Irfan Qadir his licence to practise law.

A three-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, issued a show cause notice to the former attorney general, demanding an explanation by April 2 on why his license to practise law at the court should not be cancelled. Until the matter is settled, Qadir’s license to practise law in the apex court will remain suspended.

The court had taken up a controversial purchase of armoured personnel carriers (APCs) from Serbia worth Rs1.32 billion for the Sindh police in the wake of deteriorating law and order situation in Karachi. It ordered Additional Advocate General Sindh Miran Shah to inform the bench how Qadir — who was involved in a bitter exchange with the bench on March 11 — could represent the Sindh inspector general of police when the Sindh government was being represented by Senator Farooq Naek.

The court had also taken note of the absence of power of attorney letter on the case file, authorising Qadir to appear on behalf of the Sindh police. It also asked how much was being paid to him in legal fees.

But the suspension of Qadir’s professional licence also raised eyebrows, with Pakistan Bar Council Executive Committee Chairman Ahsan Bhoon disapproving the practice of suspending licences. He summoned a meeting of PBC members on Friday to chalk out a line of action on how to deal with the matter while avoiding a confrontation between the bench and the bar.

The committee may also consider approaching Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk in this regard after consulting PBC Vice Chairman Azam Nazeer Tarar and Supreme Court Bar Association President Fazal Haq Abbasi, Mr Bhoon told Dawn.

Both Mr Bhoon and Mr Abbasi termed the bitter disagreement between the court and the counsel as “unfortunate” and said the bar always expected tolerance from both sides.

As custodians of the constitution, judges must allow advocates to plead their cases according to their conscience, adding that no court could ask a lawyer to disclose the privileged communication between him and his client. Similarly, never in our judicial history has a court asked about the fees charged by a counsel engaged in a case, they said.

Since the trend of suspending lawyers’ licences may lead to a confrontation between the bench and the bar, a mechanism has been provided in the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Act 1976 which stipulates that complaints of misconduct against a lawyer be referred to PBC’s disciplinary committee.

The Supreme Court can also suspend the licence, but it is mandatory to provide the lawyer with an opportunity to be heard, Mr Bhoon explained.

Meanwhile, Mr Qadir asked the court in his usual style not to solicit direct replies from his client, arguing that the IGP was not obliged to respond to the queries of the court relating to his service matters because he was not subordinate to it.

Likewise, prime ministers or chief ministers were also not accountable to the court in relation to their decisions, much as the court was not answerable to them, adding that he did not want to practise in court as long as one of the members of the bench remains.

Qadir said although he had been practising in the Supreme Court for 25 years, no one had ever asked him for a power of attorney letter.

He also explained that he had earlier asked the court to frame questions accurately instead of throwing out random queries, because the matter at hand was very technical and he wanted to answer the same one by one to satisfy the court.

Referring to the APC deal with a foreign vendor, which was set aside by the court on March 12, Mr Qadir argued that the contract was still valid but alleged that Farooq Naek had been forced to accept that it was a bad deal. Now, the IGP is being compelled to accept the same, he said.

But the court reminded Qadir that Naek candidly admitted that the agreement was done in violation of Sindh government’s rules of business.

Sensing the mood of the court, senior counsel Aitzaz Ahsan intervened and requested the court not to make any hasty decisions.

But the court retorted that Qadir and not the court was in a state of fury, and proposed that should Mr Ahsan defend Mr Qadir as his counsel if he wanted to help him.

On Thursday, a visibly shaken IG Sindh Ghulam Haider Jamali also explained that the Sindh police had paid Rs2 million to Mr Qadir to represent them out of a total agreed fee of Rs3 million. He also explained that it was a decade-old practice to hire private counsels instead of relying on government law officers.

Meanwhile, in a separate case related to Dr Arsalan Iftikhar, the son of former chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, who faces allegations of striking a business deal worth Rs342 million with property tycoon Malik Riaz, the Supreme Court provided Mr Qadir a final opportunity to explain his conduct.

Specifically, he was asked to explain why he had concealed the fact that he had represented Malik Riaz in the past.

Published in Dawn, March 27th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play