RECENTLY the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council gave a call for a boycott of the courts to protest against what it called indecent attitude of security forces against the judges of superior courts.

The protest call was given after the army personnel stopped the Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court (PHC), Mazhar Alam Miankhel, at a security picket at the sensitive Kohat tunnel entrance.

They allowed him to proceed after carrying out a security check. The protesting Bar also mentioned an earlier incident on May 27, when a judge, Justice Ikramullah Khan, driving to the Bannu cantonment was stopped at the security checkpost and was asked by the soldiers to show his service card.

The bar council maintained that their protest is meant to condemn the attitude of the army personnel at checkposts towards lawyers and judges.

Earlier, a petition was filed by a lawyer in the PHC before a two- member bench comprising Chief Justice Mazhar Alam and Justice Irshad Qaiser. Hearing the petition against the military checkposts and barricades in Peshawar, the bench summoned senior provincial officials as well as defence and interior secretary on Oct 13.

When the petition was filed in the PHC and the boycott call on the same issue was given by the Bar association, would not the boycott influence the decision of the court? The chief justice is an aggrieved party, then how can he head the bench hearing the petition?

When the law is equal for all, why should lawyers and judges be exempted?

In a country where VIP culture is thriving, the soldiers’ action is something to be proud of. Such personnel should be rewarded to encourage others to emulate them.

Sayed Shah Bokhari

Peshawar

Published in Dawn, October 10th , 2015

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