ISLAMABAD, July 18: Veteran jurist Sharifuddin Pirzada told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the right time to check whatever wrong might have been done to Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry was when the acting chief justice was appointed twice.

“I cannot say anything, but the judges in fact applied the doctrine of de facto when they accepted the appointment of the ACJ twice in March and decided matters according to the rosters fixed by them,” Mr Pirzada, who is representing the president, stated before a 13-member larger bench of the Supreme Court hearing the petition of the CJ. “That was the stage when something could be done,” he added.

His suggestions came when Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, the presiding judge, asked the state counsel why the president, who had a long meeting with the CJ on March 9, or the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) had not even suggested that the CJ go on leave.

“My lips are sealed and I cannot say anything as I was not here then, but I would like to ask about the reaction of judges,” Mr Pirzada said.

Sharifuddin Pirzada concluded his arguments on Wednesday and mainly focussed on the Islamic aspect of the head of the state and the concept of accountability.

CJ’s lead counsel Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan is likely to complete his reply to some of the questions raised by the government counsel on Thursday.

Mr Pirzada argued that right from the beginning, those who were concerned with the drafting of the Constitution of Pakistan were aware of the accountability of the CJ.

He referred to a book of Prof Dr Mohammad Hameedullah, a renowned Islamic scholar, to establish that rulers and caliphs had been answerable or summonable before courts even for their private matters as Islam provided accountability of the judges to ensure rule of law and merit.

Mr Pirzada referred to the famous letter of Hazrat Ali (AS) written to the governor of Egypt to emphasise how Hazrat Ali (AS) applied his mind to the appointment of qazis (judges) by stating only those should be appointed qazis who were pious, not greedy and who did not make errors in their judgments or deviate from the truth.

The letter, he said, had stated that officials who had been appointed on merit should be supervised and if any official was found guilty of misappropriation he should be suspended, disgraced and dismissed.

However, Justice Ramday referred to Hazrat Khalid Bin Walid (AS) who had been called from the battlefield on some allegations and observed that principles should be equal to all as problems emerged when discriminations were made by selecting a few for the implementation of these principles. “The principles of Islam are the universal truth,” the judge said.

On the Presidential Order (PO) 27, which deals with the compulsory leave of judges, Mr Pirzada said the law had been promulgated on the suggestions of the SJC at a time when it was engaged in an inquiry against two judges of the Lahore High Court to ensure justice.

When he cited the examples of Justice Ikhlaque Ahmed and Justice Safdar Shah, Justice Ramday observed that both judges had been suspended during the martial law period.

Referring to Justice Safdar Shah, the judge his case was sent to the SJC because he had refused to sign the death warrant of former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, while the reference against Justice Ikhlaque was instituted because he had exchanged hot words with the then Chief Justice Munir.

Mr Pirzada replied that although Justice Munir had performed well in the Boundary Commission, his judicial decisions had destroyed democracy in the country.

He argued that PO-27 was a valid peace of legislation approved by parliament in 1975. Mr Pirzada said the SJC was a competent forum to try the CJ who could be replaced in the council by next senior judge to him to head the council, adding that the removal of a judge should be left to the judiciary.