Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8
HAMID KHAN AHMAD AWAIS SENIOR ADVOCATE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN CORNELIUS, LANE & MUFT! Nawa-s-Waat House. AWAIS LAW ASSOCIATES ‘Awais Chambers. 1-Mozang Road 4, Shahrah-e-Fatima Jinnah, Lahore. Lahore Yel: Off, 6306301, 6360868, 6360824 Tel, 92-42-3735 1857, 37227814 Fax; 92-42-6303301, 6302965 Fax: 92-42-37121973 E-mail: clm@brain.net.pk E-mail: awaislawassociates@hotmail.com August 02, 2014 Justice (Retd.) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Vormer Chief Justice of Pakistan House No.222. Street 50 104. Isha nabad Subject: Notice u/s 8 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, Dear Sir. We act for Mr. Imran Khan. Chairman, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insat (PTT) who received a copy of your I egal Notice on July 25. 2014. He has instructed us to make a respectful reply to your notice under the Defamation Ordinance 2002 Since your goodself has chosen to address our Client directly and not through counsel, therefore. we are constrained to address our reply directly to you In the first place, we would like to acknowledge your invaluable contribution to the cause of rule of law. supremacy of the Constitution and independence of judiciary. The entire nation has appreciated your courage and fortitude for standing up to a military dictator who wanted to subjugate the judiciary to his own will and whims. The entire nation was behind you on 9 March 2007 and again on 3 November. 2007 when you decided ty resist unconstitutional and illegal demands of a usurper. The entire lawyers fraternity. e1vil society and several political parties including Pakistan Tehreck-e-Insat (PT) stood solidly behind you in the demand for restoration of judiciary. Our client as the leader of PT suffered detention in jail during the course of the movement We appreciate the judgment in Siru/ [igh Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD. 2009 $.C.879) which you authored. This landmark judgment may prove to be bulwark against any future attempt on the part of any military or civilian adventurer to impose unconstitutional rule on the country. We appreciate judicial activism under your leadership which provided expeditious reliel and remedy to the downtrodden segments of our Society, Our client particularly appreciates your rulings in the cases Tiled by him for exclusion of more than 37 million bogus / unverified voters and for conferring voting right on expatriate Pakistanis t VI As explained above, our client had participated in the movement for restoration of judiciary and suffered incarceration. He therefore had high expectations from the judiciary under your leadership. He and his party felt secured that under your guardianship of judiciary. no injustice would be done to his party by Election Commission of Pakistan (FCP) and the election machinery thereunder. [1 was expected that judiciary would be vigila prevent any injustice. It came as a shock to our client when. afier the general elections. he and his party were meted out step motherly treatment at the hands of the judiciary. The party was pushed into the failed hands of adequate and insecure election tribunals knowing well that the party candidates would suffer in limbo for a long time while those who committed electoral fraud would cnjoy their offices obtained through false mandate The judiciary. after its restoration in March 2009. was never perceived as a conventional institution heaped in delays but a vibrant and innovative one with immediate response to and redressal of injustices at the highest level under your dynamic leadership. This unfortunately did not happen. You can therefore appreciate the frustration on the part of our client and his party candidates. Being so sensitive and perceptive. you can certainly understand ny and disillusionment that our client and his party members had to yo There is another deep disappointment which we think may not be lefi unsaid PTI had filed an application on 6 June 2015 in the pending proceedings for implementation of the judgment in workers Party Pakistan Federation of Pakistan (reported as PLD 2012 SC 681) which was rendered to make the elections free. fair and transparent. However completely unwarranted objections were made by the office. Such objections on a miscellaneous application filed in pending proceedings are totally unprecedented. n office appeal was filed against such objections which was not months: What can our client infer from such unsympathetic res apex court and its office? We respectllly answer the numbered paragraphs of your notice as under We whole heartedly acknowledge and defer to the contents of these paras. You deserve every assard. distinction and medal conferred upon you. Indeed the entire nation is proud of your accomplishments We believe that the appointment of judicial officers as DROs and ROs was a step in the right direction, However, their subsequent conduct during the course of the general elections is shocking to the entire nation. They became party to unprecedented rigging and clectoral fraud particularly in the Provinces of Sindh and the Punjab which is mind boggling and beyond comprehension. Our client and his Party (P11) are trying to unravel and unfold the drama of how the election was stolen in and around 11 May 2013. This is being done in the higher national interest and to make the conduct of elections free. fair and transparent in the luture. ay 98 10. nN It is a matter of common knowledge that extensive electoral fraud was committed during the course of general elections of 11 May 2013 (pre poll. during the poll and post poll). Ihe rigging is unprecedented even in the contest of our chequered history of untuir elections that were held earlier. We believe that at least 35 to 40 National Assembly and twice as many Provincial Assembly seats were stolen from Pl and the judiciary did nothing to redress such gross injustice It is very respectfully. stated that our client did not resort to any_malicious. scandalous and disparaging languaze against the judiciary The ROS ond DROs were performing administrative functions during the elections and could not be treated as judicial offivers. Therefore. there was no duty cast upon your goodsel! 10 protect or defend their role which tumed out to be notorious, With due respect we point out that National Judicial Policy Making Committee (NJPMC) had no business to assess the performance of ROs and DROs or to give them a clean chit while the petitions concerning their conduct were pending before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and were likely to be taken up by the Election Tribunals. You would kindly agree that any finding in their favour would constitute prejudgment on the part of NJPMC and would prejudice the cases of the agurieved candidates before the ECP and Election Tribunals. Actually what was reported in the media about the meeting of NJPMC dated 8 June 2013 discouraged P| candidates from filing election petitions and many of them did not actually file petitions. We believe that there was no necessity for initiating proceedings tor contempt of court against our client It is absolutely correct that our client holds the judiciary inh respect being an important institution and third pillar of the State. It is also correct that he did not mean to abuse or disrespect any member of the judiciary. We hereby reiterate that our client has high respect and regard for the judiciary as an institution and would continue to do so in the future Our client continues to hold juticiary as an independent and highly respected institution. Our client is committed to the supremacy of the constitution and the constitutional role of judiciary We believe that whatever has been said by our client was an expression of disappointment due to the failure of the ECP and the judiciary to dispense justice to him and his party at every level. The language used may not be appropriate but unfortunately so is the nature of discourse during public meetings and political press conferences. He did not mean any of the what you have quoted him to have said. It was only an expression of protest and disappointment stated rather in strong terms We appreciate the exercise of self-restraint and tolerance on your part and hope that you will continue to do so. Apart from being the holder of highest judicial office in the land you have been a popular leader (not political) of this country and the people of Pakistan have always looked up te you for leadership in redressal of their grievances. We recall that during the course of Lh. the meetings of the Bar Associations held in your honour during the lawyers’ movement, some of your supporters did not use very cautious language. You ignored that because you thought and rightly so that such excessive expression could happen in the intensity of feelings and sentiments over the colossal injustice that had been done to your goodsell' and other members of judiciary on 3" of November 2007. We hope and expect that such an understanding or tolerance on your part would continue in respect of what has been said against you and you would not take it as personal affront There are no two opinions that while sitting on the bench you and your colleagues rendered independent judgments without fear or favour particularly against influential and powerful figures, Your services to the nation in recovering huge amounts of public money would always be appreciated by the people of Pakistan, We just want to state that our client did not seek any’ revenge or expect any “forced justice” from the Supreme Court. No one knows better than your oodself that public protest is the right of all citizens which is never meant to be an attempt to obtain favourable verdict. You have always been of the view that lawyers had the right to protest against injustice done to you on 9 March 2007. independent of any proceedings that were pending before the Supreme Court or the Supreme Judicial Council at that time. Such protests as we all agreed were neither intended to foree the judiciary to render a particular verdict nor were meant to divert the course of justice. Regarding reference to Article 225 we may point out that the activist Supreme Court under your leadership never took a narrow, contined or pedantic view of the provisions of law and the Constitution. The Supreme Court under your leadership always interpreted the Constitutional provisions liberally and widened their scope and jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. That is why a three member bench headed by your goodselt in Workers Party of Pakistan y. Federation of Pakistan (P11) 2012 S.C.681) undertook an extensive exercise to bring about electoral reforms within the confines of the Constitution, All the known political parties were given notice to come up with their proposals that would make the elections free. fair and transparent under the Constitution. AIL major political parties participated in the nput proceedings and gave their valuable ‘The voters in Pakistan are grateful to you for issuing declarations. directions and observations which would make the elections free, fair and transparent Had these declarations. directions and observations been implemented by the ECP. DROs and ROs and others in the electoral process. the results of the clections would have been very different. PI fully participated in the hearings of this case and made rich contribution. Is it then the fault of our client if he expected trom the Supreme court of Pakistan that it could invoke Article 184(3) for implementation of said judgment? When Article 225 could not dissuade the Supreme court from undertaking the exercise of electoral reforms under Article 184(3) and giving comprehensive judgment thereon. then why should the judgment not be implemented within the framework of the same provision” In any case. the Supreme Court on several occasions wl 16, under your leadership had frequently interfered with the process of general elections to ensure its faimess and transparency. Why would our client not expect the same from the Supreme Court after holding of the polls? No one knows beiter than your goodself that the exercise of justice through election wibunals under Representation of Peoples Act (ROPA) has completely failed over the years because the petitioners are denied justice over a long period of time with the result that either the tenure of the concerned assembly expires or candidates give up the pursuit of their cases in disgust and frustration, This unfortunate history of disposal of clection petitions has encouraged those who steal and rig the elections, They understand that by 2 electoral Fraud before or during or immediately after the pol! th Would be successtul and would enjoy though illegitimately. the offices of the members of Parliament or Provincial Assembly without any mandate from the voters. The victim of such rigging or fraud on the other hand would be made to run from pillar to post for many years in fruitless litigation. How is it any fault of our client to expect from an activist Supreme Court to provide an te redressal of complaints of PTI candidates by exercising. its jurisdiction liberally under Article 184(3) by implementing ils own judgment in this behalf”? As explained above. our client has only expressed his disappointment and frustration over denial of justive w him and his party after the polls. It is absolutely correct that Chief Justice of Pakistan (CIP) should have nothing to do with the appointment of DROs and ROs, Similarly it is expected that the CIP or judiciary would not interact with them so that any complaints against them would be objectively, impartially and justly addressed by them Unfortunately during the most sensitive days of the general elections writing to ROs directly and then addressing them at various places (like Karachi on § April. Hyderabad on 6 April, Lahore on 7 April. Peshawar on 8 April and Quetta on 14 April) created a general perception that these ROs have been given the blessings and tree rein by the judiciary and that they could use sueh blessings to do whatever they choose to do. Holding them clean and above board afer the clections in the mecting of NIPMC on 8 June 2013. and particularly when there was an outery against rigging and electoral fraud. lurthered Strengthened such pereeption, It is respectfully stated that judiciary should have stayed away from the electoral process to establish the pereeption of its neutrality, impartiality and objectivity There is no hypocrisy on the part of our Client. The elections beld in KPK have been accepted as fair by all parties concerned. In any ease, our client has always been willing to have any of the constituencies in KPK audited through verification of thumb impressions With due respect it is stated that allegation of rigging against ROs does not involve their judicial office or character. Atter the appointment as DROs and ROs, they were supposed to report to the HCP not to the judiciary We believe that choice of words may not be correct. However you have always shown understanding and tolerance towards language that was used during the meetings and by speakers particularly in the days of lawyers’ movement In \ f Uh ‘ Me any case after lending the services of district judiciary to the ECP. the judiciary should not feel compelled to protect them against allegations. It may be correct that the purpose of NIPMC in interacting with DROs / ROs was to ensure just. fair and honest elections. However. unfortunately, a different perception has generally developed about the entire exercise 186 19. We have already stated above that you enjoy great respect for making efforts for independence of judiciary in the country. However, there was no nefarious design on the part of our client and he did not mean to cause injury to your reputation 20 & 22 It was indeed not so intended by our elient 2a With due respect to your goodself and to the office that you have held. we believe that it may not be appropriate for a former Chief lustice of Pakistan to enter into any personal litigation, We are aware that your focus has always been on rendering service to the country and did never care about making money. We ure aware that in the past you have shown immense courage and tolerance in the face of expression that could otherwise cause mental agony and harassment particularly during the course of lawyers’ movement for restoration of judiciary. In any case. our client never meant to cause any mental agony of torture or harassment or humiliation to you. We deeply appreciate your desire to contribute to the causes of the downtrodden Sections of society. Our client has always been working for public causes particularly those meant for weaker sections of the society. He will expect your contribution towards such causes in the future us 25. We hope that you will reconsider the ide of entering into personal litigation, Sincerely. / fae HAMID KHAN” ALIMAD AWAIS 6

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi