Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Counter version of Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry Chief Justice of Pakistan

The statement of General (rtd) Pervaiz Musharaf during an interview with Al Jazeera TV that the CJP wanted to remove him illegally is absolutely incorrect simply for the reason that I was not a member of the bench which comprised 11 Honorable Judge's (four have since taken oath under the PCO) and the case which was still being heard was to continue on Monday, November 5, 2007. This is the same Supreme Court which decided in favor of General (rtd) Musharaf on his dual office case and I was not member of that bench and the decision was applauded. If a case is decided in favor all is well. But if there is a self created fear it will be against you then the Supreme Court is called as conspirator, so much so that the case which was being heard on the merits and which had not been decided yet and where the Governments (General (rtd) Musharaf) own counsel were delaying it on one pretext or an other. Let no one forget that I did not sit on either of the benches despite the fact that in accordance with the judicial system prevailing in Pakistan every judge is independent and therefore in a position to give a decision on any case placed before him. General (rtd) Musharaf has taken different positions and enumerated different reasons for justifying his actions of Nov 3 rd 2007. Details in this behalf I will discuss no sooner than I am released from this illegal custody which is against all norms of law and morality.

Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
Chief Justice of Pakistan

1 comments:

naushad said...

Mr. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is absolutely right. How could he influence a bench of which he was not even a part? But when one is a victim of paranoia every one seems to be your enemy. And why should the state be equated with one person - no matter how big and powerful. That has been the tragedy of all Third World countries 'L'etat, c'est moi has been the motto of all military dictators and they all think 'apres moi. le deluge'. History however shows otherwise.