Aitzaz the Pimp, CJ the Prostitute?

(Right now I hear CJ is in a meeting with PM Gilani, with a picture of Benazir sitting between them. Though Gilani had invited CJ, I am surprised the CJ has obliged him. This is UNPRECEDENTED! Of course nothing good can come of it.)

No Shame!

Aitzaz says “CJ, let’s go meet Zardari!” and CJ says “Oh yes, Master!” People curse but…

Aitzaz says “CJ, let’s go meet Holbrooke!” and CJ says “Oh yes, Master!” People curse but…

Aitzaz says “CJ, let’s go meet Gilani!” and CJ says “Oh yes, Master!” People are cursing but…

Shame on you, CJ. Shame on you and the whole judiciary!

3 Responses to “Aitzaz the Pimp, CJ the Prostitute?”

  1. 1 Khurram February 17, 2010 at 7:25 pm

    I disagree with you. Confrontation is not alway the prefered way. Here, by meeting prime minister CJ got settled some important issues.

    Also my first thaugh was, CJ should refuse to meet this idiot. But, one have to think for the best interests of the nation. So it was a correct dicision.

  2. 2 nota February 17, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    “Best interest of the nation”? So Constitution gets raped once again, Justices get threatened by the PM and Zardari, CJ looses a lot of respect by going to meet the very guy who threatened to kick him and fellow judges the day before, no one gets punished for unconstitutional acts, and this is supposed to be in the best interest of the nation? Sorry but I will always disagree on this.

  3. 3 nota February 18, 2010 at 8:40 am

    The fact that CJ’s actions were unethical and against set procedures has been the discussion of the day. That was the topic of almost every talk show and we can see examples of it in the print media today. An example:

    CJ’s meeting with PM against traditions
    By Sabir Shah

    LAHORE: The arrival of Premier Yousuf Raza Gilani at Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s dinner hosted for Justice (retd) Khalilur Ramday in Islamabad on Tuesday night may have mellowed down the government-judiciary tiff a bit by spreading smiles all over but it has certainly pained thousands of litigants across the country who have pinned high hopes in an otherwise widely-deemed independent judicial system since March 2007.

    These litigants, many of whom had provided energy to the chief justice by practically expressing solidarity with him on the roads after he was deposed twice by Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf in 2007, today feel that if the prime minister can meet the Supreme Court judges with such ease while he is actually defending the NRO beneficiaries in his cabinet despite explicit Supreme Court orders to treat the allegedly corrupt elements in accordance with the law, then a commoner should also have the right to meet the judges and defend himself or herself in a ‘more congenial’ and ‘more informal’ environment.

    Already disturbed by an unprecedented backlog of cases in courts due to one reason or the other, the premier’s meeting with the chief justice over a sumptuous dinner may have actually rubbed salt in the wounds of waiting litigants.

    While Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in August 2009, had exhorted his country’s judiciary “to wipe every tear of every waiting litigant” by eliminating the scourge of a huge backlog of cases, his Pakistani counterpart is making every effort to prevent his cabinet members from facing the law rather than convincing the country’s president to appoint judges in time to minimise the miseries of waiting litigants.

    Having accorded a warm welcome to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani at Tuesday’s dinner, the chief justice has thus disappointed many who have been lauding the brave and revolutionary actions initiated by him to uphold the supremacy of law and relaying the seed of an independent judiciary by swimming against the tide in a country like Pakistan, which has been ruled by military and civil dictators for most part of its history.

    One, however, wonders if the chief justice’s action is in line with the set procedures governing the role, functions and ethics of judges, a subject which is still being widely debated on the planet.

    A peek into the international standards codifying the character of court judges reveals in 1985, the United Nations (UN) had drafted the first universal standards of conduct for the judiciary under the title “Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary”.

    Just 15 years later, the UN had established a working party of chief justices from different countries. In 2002, their efforts resulted in guidelines called the “Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct”, named after the location of their first meeting.

    According to the preamble, these principles were intended to establish standards for ethical conduct of judges. This document presented six central ethical values like independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality and competence along with diligence.

    Not fewer than 16 instructions were given under the “propriety” head alone, including whether and to what extent judges may accept gifts, hold public lectures, be a member of a professional association or maintain private contacts.

    In America, the Codes of Conduct were issued at the level of the states back in the early 20th Century, followed by a Federal Judicial Code in 1973, though the Judiciary Act was passed long ago in 1789.

    In Europe, the European Council took on a leadership role and expressed a first recommendation to its member states on the independence, performance and role of judges in 1994.

    Based upon this proposal, the “European Charter on the Statute for Judges” was issued in 1998. This charter contains a catalogue of regulations which aim at ensuring the competence, independence and impartiality that individuals legitimately expect of law courts and judges entrusted with protecting their rights.

    While the Bangalore Principles are now used as a model in many countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia, the European associations of judges have taken a more sceptical view. According to them, the Bangalore Principle, too, widely restricted the judges’ civil rights and, too, strictly regulated their private lives.

    The European judges have also opposed the idea that breaches of ethical rules could possibly be severely punished. There is a cultural-psychological background to such reservations. The Bangalore Principles are strongly inspired by common law thinking in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, even though a considerable number of judges from Continental Europe, the countries of which normally apply civil law, participated in drafting the rules.

    The interest in judicial professional ethics has particularly been aroused in the crisis-prone countries of Latin America, where a true regional code of conduct does not exist yet, but the Statute of Ibero-American Judges of 2001, does at least contain a separate chapter on judicial ethics. Some countries, however, have tackled the issue in concrete terms at the national level. In Mexico, a few years ago, a Federal Code of Judicial Ethics was adopted.

    Prior to this, Costa Rica (2000), Guatemala (2001) and Panama (2002) had introduced similar sets of rules and regulations in Central America. In South America, this applies to Chile (2003), Venezuela (2003) and Peru (2004), as well as various Argentinean provinces. Similar reforms are currently being discussed in Paraguay.

    Jurists and legal experts have widely been deliberating upon the subject today that if any court system becomes farcical once the citizens lose faith in it, despise its judges and resort to other means to enforce their rights.

    They are of the opinion that if judges have lost authority and personal credibility through unethical conduct, they will hardly be able to convince the citizens of the accuracy of any sentences they pass, besides observing in noted law journals that once a judiciary gives itself standards of conduct and makes them available to the public, this generally signifies an important trust-forming measure that spells out in black and white what behaviour citizens may expect of their judges.

    Since the time of US President Thomas Jefferson in 1803, supreme courts the world over have been overturning executive actions deemed unconstitutional by them and have found it difficult to directly enforce their rulings because of their reliance on both executive or legislative branches of the government for this purpose, but neither the US executive nor the judiciary there has ever tried to meet up openly to defuse the resultant tensions.

    One notable instance of Nona quiescence in world court history was witnessed in 1832, when the state of Georgia ignored the US Supreme Court’s decision in Worcester versus Georgia case, after President Andrew Jackson had sided with the Georgia courts to defy Chief Justice John Marshall’s orders.

    The 1954 judgment regarding desegregation of public schools in Brown versus Board case was also defied in the Southern part of America.

    In more recent history, many had feared that President Richard Nixon would refuse to comply with the court’s order in United States vs Nixon (1974) to surrender the Watergate tapes, but the US judiciary and executive never met to find a ‘way out’.

    For those who think there is a heavenly judicial system in place in the US, they should know that American Supreme Court is not immune from political and institutional restraints as lower federal courts and state courts sometimes resist doctrinal innovations, as do the law-enforcement officials.
    In addition, there are other mechanisms by which the executive and legislative branches can restrain the US Supreme Court orders. The Congress could increase the number of justices, giving the president power to influence future decisions via appointments (as in Roosevelt’s Court Packing Plan discussed above) and can also pass a legislation that restricts the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts over certain cases.
    [highlighted for Doc and other baboos]

    That Aitzaz was behind all this as I had stated in “Aitzaz Suckers CJ (and Media) Again” is also confirmed by The News:

    Who played what role in the drama
    By Umar Cheema & Dilshad Azeem

    ISLAMABAD: Who persuaded Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to reverse the almost fatal advice of some top legal minds and seek a quick reconciliation with the chief justice of Pakistan? This question is widely being asked and everyone is coming up with one name — Barrister Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan.

    According to sources, Aitzaz Ahsan played a key role and Gilani accepted his advice, saving his government from a catastrophe. The reported disagreement of Attorney General Anwar Mansoor with the decision also played an important role, the sources say.

    The lawyers’ leader not only rejected the legal interpretation of the government advisers on the judges’ appointment, he also informed the PM that it was in violation of the Constitution and that the PM should try to hold a meeting with the chief justice to remove misunderstandings. The same advisers had misled the PM, informing him that the executive order for the restoration of judges required ratification from parliament.

    The advisers under question — Law Minister Dr Babar Awan and PM’s adviser Latif Khosa —- are facing grave accusations of receiving money from their clients to buy the judges for favourable verdicts. Instead of correcting their conduct, they apparently nurtured grudges against the chief justice.

    Background discussions reveal that Aitzaz was instrumental in breaking the ice as he advised the prime minister that he was being misled through selective interpretation of some clauses of the Constitution. The Law Ministry had diverted the attention of the PM and the president from Article 260 of the Constitution that makes it binding on the president to honour the recommendations of the chief justice on the question of judges’ appointment.

    According to the sources, as Aitzaz invited the PM’s attention to Article 260, the chief executive of the country was caught by surprise, realising that he was being kept in the dark.

    The law minister was called to ascertain why the said article was not mentioned in the discussion. The minister said since the article was incorporated into the Constitution through the Legal Framework Order (LFO), it did not carry weight. However, Aitzaz intervened, arguing that Article 260 was an operative part of the Constitution.

    Latif Khosa, who is said to be not so close to the law minister and is instead vying for the same slot, was on the same page. Khosa kept parroting the Al-Jihad Trust case to convince his bosses about the seniority issue. But Aitzaz countered his argument, saying that the latest judgment on this question was delivered in 2002 when the court granted the chief justice of Pakistan the sole authority to determine the fitness and competence of judges for elevation to the office of the high court chief justice or to the Supreme Court.

    As the prime minister realised that a great blunder had been committed, Aitzaz advised him to seek a meeting with the chief justice and assured him that things would be settled. The PM’s gate-crashing into the CJ’s dinner was in this backdrop.

    According to the sources, the PM’s arrival was sudden and unexpected. A senior staffer of the PM first rang the Supreme Court registrar, expressing Gilani’s desire to see the chief justice who was subsequently informed. The CJ was caught by surprise to hear this but he returned the message that he was hosting a farewell dinner in honour of Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, so an urgent meeting was not possible.

    Another message from the PM office said the PM still wanted to meet him urgently. The CJ replied that the PM could come after the dinner. But the PM reached the Supreme Court in the next 15 minutes, surprising all and sundry present there, thus breaking the ice.

    The sources said even the attorney general saw the PM in disbelief since he too was unaware of his plan. As far the attorney general’s role in this crisis is concerned, he had reportedly told the PM that a blunder had been committed by issuing the notifications and the government was destined to be defeated in the case.

    It was learnt that the attorney general was initially reluctant to plead the case but had to concede to doing so as the so-called advisers were ready to fill the gap through other means.

    When contacted, AGP Anwer Mansoor neither clearly negated nor categorically endorsed the development. “I had a lot of interactions with the prime minister to give him my opinion on the issue and solve the crises.” The premier, the AGP said, may have considered it better to have a face-to-face meeting with the CJ.

    “It can be a consequence of what I have been telling the government but I did not issue an invitation to him as Gilani Sahib, himself, said while addressing me in the presence of many others. It was a surprise for me too.” However, the sources insisted that the AGP and Aitzaz had played a role in facilitating the PM’s Tuesday participation in the CJ’s dinner.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: