ISLAMABAD (PEN) : The Supreme Court has unanimously accepted the review petition against the court’s interpretation of Article 63A, and withdrawn its earlier decision on the constitutional article.
Earlier, at the start of the proceedings, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Founder Imran Khan’s lawyer Ali Zafar has said in his arguments in the Supreme Court that the government is proposing amendments to the Constitution, and it is feared the court will allow horse-trading.
A five-member Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa is hearing the Article 63A interpretation review case. The bench also includes Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel.
At the outset of the hearing, Barrister Ali Zafar said his client, Imran Khan, wants to address the court personally, adding that the former premier wants to argue the case through a video link. When the CJP asked him to start his arguments on the case, the counsel refused, saying first Imran Khan will make his submissions to the court, and then he will present the arguments.
He argued that his client had some objections to the bench, and if Imran Khan was not allowed to appear on video link, he has asked to put some things before the court. The CJP reminded him that he was not only a lawyer for his client, but also an officer of the court.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel said they had also been lawyers, but did not follow everything their client said, adding that they followed only what was according to the law.
Ali Zafar said that if Imran Khan was not allowed to speak, then he will not appear, adding that the government wants to bring some amendments. The CJP said he was making political statements so that it makes headlines the next day. The counsel said that even today’s newspaper says the constitutional amendment is mandatory before October 25.
The PTI lawyer also claimed that the government wants to bring a constitutional amendment and there is an impression that the court will allow horse-trading. At this, the chief justice said the lawyer could be charged with contempt of court. He further said the court respected him, so he should also respect them.
“You are making a very loaded statement by mentioning horse-trading. If we tell you what horse-trading if, you’ll be embarrassed.”
PTI withdraws from court proceedings
Ali Zafar said that the Article 63A verdict stops horse-trading. Justice Mandokhel remarked that the court had given its opinion on Article 63A, not a decision. Imran Khan’s lawyer Ali Zafar boycotted the proceedings, saying the PTI founder has said the composition of the bench is not right, therefore he will not be a part of it.
Supreme Court appoints Ali Zafar judicial assistant
Ali Zafar told the chief justice that if he hears the case, there will be a conflict of interest. The CJP noted that neither the court will listen to what the lawyer was saying nor will it make it part of the record.
The court then appointed Ali Zafar a judicial assistant, after which the counsel said his client, Imran Khan, maintains that the bench is not legal, so there is no point in going ahead. The CJP asked the lawyer to continue his arguments, asking him not to be afraid of a decision, as the court can even reject the review application.
Barrister Ali Zafar told the court that the president had asked for an opinion regarding Article 63A, and a review cannot be filed against this opinion. He added that only the president can approach the court if he needed further clarification. CJP Isa said that the PTI had also filed an application in this case. Ali Zafar responded that they had asked for lifetime disqualification over floor crossing, but the court had said they could legislate on it in parliament.
The CJP inquired whether the majority of the judges who gave the decision on Article 63A interpretation wrote the word opinion or used the word decision. Barrister Ali Zafar said that it is for this court to decide whether it was an opinion or a decision. The CJP asked if this meant he supported the review plea to the extent that the word judgment should be replaced by opinion.
Justice Mandokhel observed that he and Justice Miankhel were also part of the earlier bench, but no objection had been raised against them.
