Image Source: WAF official facebook page
According to a press release by WAF (Women`s Action Forum) on Jun 4, 2019, the body has demanded reconsideration on their previous reference against the former Chief Justice Saqib Nisar. The reference in question was against the former chief justice back in 2018. However, the Supreme Judicial Council dismissed the reference declaring it as infructuous upon the retirement of the former chief justice.
WAF was adamant in raising their concerns regarding the reference as it was only taken up after former CJP`s retirement, the fact that he was CJP for three months after the reference was initially filed.
In their official response to the Supreme Judicial Council, WAF reaffirmed its stance that the allegations against the former chief justice are quite serious in nature, which demand immediate attention. If former CJP enjoys any sort of benefits and privileges at the behest of public exchequer due to his former office, misconduct allegations hold imminent importance in this regard.
As highlighted by WAF in the said press release, there are five major reasons, which are primarily a violation of the code of conduct for judges:
- As a violation of article 3 of the code stated above, former CJP stands accused of Denigration of minorities (Hindus) and women in his public speeches. Former CJP`s media controversy transcends beyond denigration as WAF mentions him in inappropriate courting of publicity. This further entails former CJP`s repeated engagement in public controversy which appears to be a violation of article 5 for the same code.
- One of the highlights of former CJP`s tenure remains the infamous Dam Fund. Although the fund in question has raised a considerable amount so far. WAF accuses former CJP of violation of multiple codes including 4, 6, 7 and 8. According to WAF, former CJP failed to recuse himself from cases, which involved the same litigants, or advocates that were constantly donating in the fund. Former CJP repeatedly met donors in his chamber or solicited personal donations for the dam fund. WAF is of the view that such cases involving the same litigants or any other related party, the former CJP should have recused himself.
- WAF also accuses the former CJP of discriminatory attitude against lawyers, which is a violation of Article 2 of the code of conduct for judges. The disrespect to lawyers broadens with disrespecting judges where one particular incident involved tossing the mobile phone of a session judge in interior Sindh. These acts resulted in a failure to maintain harmony amongst the country`s judicial institutions.
- Former CJP toured public institutions, went on gatherings, visited hospitals, etc., which were extrajudicial roles. WAF believes that these events disrupted the judicial process causing a further delay in disposing of cases. Failure to dispose of cases cause a violation of Article 7 of the code.
- WAF believes that the former CJP exercised undue influence on public institutions to facilitate CPEC and Chinese companies, which constitute a violation of article 8 of the code.
In the light of the facts mentioned above, WAF requested the official response be placed before the honorable CJP and Supreme Judicial Council. This came in with a request for reconsideration of the previous decision, which termed the reference no SJC-398 as infructuous.