THIS is apropos the article ‘Justice on trial’ (June 24) by Zahid Hussain. The author has applauded the quashing of the executive’s reference against Qazi Faez Isa but strangely in the same breath has strived to melancholise it.

Gorbachev aptly said: “Knowing what is wrong is easy. Knowing what is right is the hard part.”

The writer should have felt happy that the Supreme Court has addressed all concerns of Justice Faez Isa. First, the judge’s contention of the mala fide nature of the reference has been addressed. Hence there is no reference standing against him.

Second, the judge’s arguments that it was a matter of assets’ reconciliation have been accepted and his wife’s case has been referred to the FBR commissioner concerned. Third, a foolproof mechanism of checks has been placed on ground to allay the judge’s wife’s apprehension of foul play by the FBR.

The FBR has been obligated to submit the entire record of the proceedings to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) for threadbare scrutiny.

The SJC consists of three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court and two most senior chief justices of the high courts; hence its proceedings are independent of all executive influence.

It is a landmark verdict as it has established some far-reaching principles for the integrity of the judiciary. It has reiterated that the right forum for deciding the truth of the allegations against a judge is the SJC and not the Supreme Court as the latter cannot record testimonies and evidence.

It has further emphasised that the judges must come out clean in the allegations, notwithstanding the animosity of the complainant. The judges have not subordinated accountability to their institutional sympathies for a fellow judge.

The occasion is to be cheerful, not melancholic, as the executive reference has died, while there is no bar on the SJC to hold accountability if warranted by new facts.

The perspective of the writer would have attained harmony with that of the amateurish chattering class, the bedrock of all democratic polities, if a similar verdict had come in Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s case.

Admitted that Gen Pervez Musharraf held animosity towards him, but what about the truth of the allegations of accumulation of assets beyond means of his son Arslan and the judge’s role in getting him appointed in FIA, defying merit?

“There are no roads. Roads are made by walking” says a Spanish proverb. The Supreme Court verdict has turned back from Iftikhar Chaudhry’s case and walked on a new road.

Rafi Pervaiz Bhatti
Villanova, Pennsylvania, USA

Published in Dawn, July 1st, 2020