Latest news with #CJPAfridi
Express Tribune
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
SC accelerates death penalty case disposals
While the performance of constitutional benches at the Supreme Court remains underwhelming, the top court under Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi has achieved unprecedented acceleration in disposing of criminal cases, particularly those involving death sentences. According to the SC statement, 238 death sentence appeals have been decided during CJP Afridi's tenure. When he assumed office, 59,435 cases were pending in the apex court, which then comprised 16 permanent and two ad hoc judges. As of May 20, the number of working judges has risen to 25, and the case pendency has been reduced to 56,715. Since October 28, 2024, the court has disposed of 238 death sentence appeals, over 52% of the 454 total cases. At the start of Afridi's tenure, 410 death sentence appeals were pending. With 44 new appeals instituted since then, the number rose to 454, but rapid fixation and disposal have brought it down to 216. By comparison, only 26 such appeals were resolved during the corresponding period a year earlier. The SC statement credits this turnaround to the CJP's strategic focus on long-pending cases and the extension of working hours to hear them. Three dedicated benches were constituted and worked on over several consecutive weeks. The first bench, headed by Justice Athar Minallah and comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, is learnt to have decided 125 appeals in April alone. The second bench was led by Justice Muhammad Hashim Kakar, with Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi. The third bench, chaired by Justice Naeem Afghan, included Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Aamer Farooq. "The judges comprising these benches convened prolonged sittings, frequently extending beyond normal court working hours. The unwavering commitment of Hon'ble Judges has culminated in the huge disposal of all death appeals instituted up to 2024. The Court will now proceed as next phase to the cases of life-imprisonment appeals, preferential hearing such cases where the convict has already served two-thirds of the sentence—an approach designed to afford prompt relief to deserving appellants while reinforcing public confidence in the even-handed administration of criminal justice." The apex court acknowledged the cooperation of counsel, prosecutors, prison officials and families. "Their patience and professionalism resulted in this progress. Their combined commitment demonstrates that, with focused and collaborative resolve, the justice system can translate in commendable output," the statement said. Report on CBs demanded However, lawyers argue that it is essential to release a performance report on the constitutional benches (CBs), functioning after the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The judges serving on these CBs have yet to evolve any rules or procedures for their operation. Notably, even a CB judge, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, has raised concerns about the absence of regulations. At the same time, the superior judiciary under CJP Afridi is confronting what many call its most significant challenge: executive influence over the nomination of CB judges and judicial appointments. Although CJP Afridi has prioritised the reduction of case pendency, he has so far been unable to devise a strategy to counter the executive's role in appointments. According to some legal observers, around 90% of judicial appointments are currently backed by executive authorities. Commenting on the performance of SC judges, Advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii noted: "These are great numbers. But the only number that counts is the majority of the executive in the judicial commission.' 'It is with this number that the meaning of justice has been reduced in our country. There is no independent judicial organ. The challenge to this usurpation of a pillar of the state remains pending. Until the question of the sanctity of the constitution is settled, these numbers are meaningless." As for the performance of the constitutional bench, he added, 'As far as the constitutional bench is concerned, the less said the better'. 'We were told they were assembled to give us efficient and competent adjudication. After six months of doing almost nothing, we have only the military courts decision being overturned as proof of their mastery. Even that decision comes without any details yet afforded.' 'We are on our way to reviewing the reserved seats case without asking why the petitioner seeking review has decided not to implement it. With a bench which lacks the author judge and is headed by the author of a dissenting opinion which the majority had censured,' he added. 'When the lawyers of today tell their stories tomorrow, the period in which the 26th amendment was in vogue and these constitutional benches were functioning will be remembered as little more than a bad joke." Lawyers stress that the time has come for SC judges to unite in defence of judicial independence, instead of prioritising personal objectives.
Express Tribune
26-02-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Cold war costs Justice Mansoor KSA trip
A cold war in the highest judiciary seems to have further deepened as Senior Puisne Judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah could not fly to Saudi Arabia for attending two events at the arbitration for want of ex- Pakistan leave. It is learnt that Justice Shah was invited to deliver key notes at two events at the Arbitration week in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia organised by the Al Baraka Forum and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation- Arbitration Center (OIC-AC). During the week, Justice Shah also wanted to perform Umrah before the start of the holy month of Ramazan. The senior puisne judge had made a request to Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi for ex-Pakistan leave well in time, which remained unanswered, compelling Justice Mansoor to cancel his trip to Saudi Arabia as his leaves could not be sanctioned. It is to be noted that Justice Shah was the only Supreme Court judge from a Muslim country invited to the event sponsored by the Saudis in 'Arbitration Week' in Riyadh which is a high profile event. Lawyers believe that Arbitration is most significant for Pakistan, and Justice Shah's presence in Riyadh would have helped build cooperation amongst the judiciaries of the Muslim countries. This could have led to developing a joint arbitration centre for Muslim countries and an international arbitration centre in Pakistan. They are also wondering as why the minutes of committee working under Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act 2023 are not being shared on SC website. The practice was stopped since the incumbent CJP assumed his office. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah is also member of three members committee. Earlier, four justices, who opposed the elevation of high court judges to the apex court, have been removed from key administrative committees under CJP Yahya Afridi's restructuring plan. CJP Afridi reconstituted several committees, replacing senior justices with junior ones. Those excluded from critical roles included Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi. Had CJP Afridi constituted a full court to hear petitions against the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the situation might have been differently, said the legal experts. Two judges, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar, who formed the majority in the relevant committee, had ordered the constitution of a full court to hear the petitions in the first week of November. However, instead of listing the case, CJP Afridi convened a meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to select judges for the constitutional bench. The constitutional bench has yet to decide petitions against 26th constitutional amendment. Subsequently, a three-judge bench led by Justice Shah had raised question if the regular bench could be barred to adjudicate the matters related to the interpretation of law and Constitution after 26th Constitutional Amendment. However the case was withdrawn from that regular bench by the committees. A division bench of the apex court led by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah held that the members of both committees violated the judicial order and withdrew the case from regular bench. The bench remarked that committees' members have committed the contempt; therefore, the full court should be constituted to initiate the proceedings. However, the members of constitutional bench were visibly upset and they set aside the regular bench's judicial orders. Recently, the federal government also filed intra court appeals against regular bench orders in contempt matter. It is being witnessed that dissenting judges faced always tough times since ex-CJP Saqib Nisar's tenure. Lawyers believe that if the clash among senior SC judges continues, the superior judiciary will be further weakened and the situation will be favourable for the beneficiaries of 26th Constitutional Amendment.
Express Tribune
17-02-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Top judges axed from key SC committees
ISLAMABAD: The conflict among senior Supreme Court judges has intensified as four justices who opposed the elevation of high court judges to the apex court have been removed from key administrative committees under Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi's restructuring plan. CJP Afridi has reconstituted several committees, replacing senior justices with junior ones. Those excluded from critical roles include Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi. Reports indicate that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has been removed from his advisory role at the Federal Judicial Academy (FJA), a position he had held for the past year. Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Ayesha Malik have been excluded from the Law Clerkship Programme Committee, which will now be led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, with Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb as the other member. Similarly, Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi has been removed from the SC Building Committee, while Justice Athar Minallah has lost his position on the Supreme Court's Archive and Museum Committee. Additionally, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan has not been included in any of the newly reconstituted committees. It was widely expected that the conflict among Supreme Court judges would subside during Chief Justice Afridi's tenure, but that did not happen. Legal experts believe that had CJP Afridi constituted a full court to hear petitions against the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the situation might have played out differently. Two judges, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar, who formed the majority in the relevant committee, had ordered the constitution of a full court to hear the petitions in the first week of November. However, instead of listing the case, CJP Afridi convened a meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to select judges for the constitutional bench. The government succeeded in appointing a majority of its preferred judges to the constitutional bench, which subsequently delayed hearing the petitions against the amendment. Rather than awaiting the final decision on the 26th Amendment, CJP Afridi proceeded with JCP meetings to consider high court judicial appointments. During his first 100 days tenure, 36 judges were appointed in the high courts and seven were elevated to the apex court. During his first 100 days in office, 36 judges were appointed to the high courts, and seven were elevated to the Supreme Court. However, CJP Afridi acknowledged the government's influence in the appointment process, raising serious concerns about the integrity and competence of several newly appointed judges. Justice Shah had urged the JCP to establish rules for nominating judges to the constitutional bench, but his suggestion was not entertained. Moreover, when a three-member bench led by Justice Shah questioned the jurisdiction of a regular bench in a tax case, the matter was withdrawn from his bench by a committee led by Justice Afridi. The move has sparked ongoing debate over whether the committee had the authority to override a judicial order. Tensions further escalated when members of the constitutional bench expressed visible frustration with the regular bench, led by Justice Shah, for holding that four senior SC judges could face contempt proceedings. When CJP Afridi convened a JCP meeting to consider eight new Supreme Court appointments, four SC judges opposed the move, insisting that the pending application for a full court hearing on the 26th Amendment should be decided first. Defending the new appointments, CJP Afridi remarked that "corporate judges" were not fulfilling their responsibilitiesa pointed reference to Justice Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar. On February 10, both Justice Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar boycotted the JCP meeting on SC appointments. Subsequently, they were removed from key administrative committees. Some lawyers view the standoff as a clash between beneficiaries and aggrieved judges of the 26th Amendment.
Express Tribune
10-02-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Executive's grip on judiciary tightens
ISLAMABAD: The appointment of seven Supreme Court judges under Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi has sparked concerns that the superior judiciary has fallen under complete executive influence. Former senator Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar raised alarms over the process, saying that as a string of recent events rocks the judiciary, the appointments have hammered the final nail in the coffin of its credibility. "Our judiciary's record is nothing to shout home about but in the manner these new appointments were carried out without first hearing the petitions challenging the very process of selection has robbed the institution of any last remaining bits of credibility," he lamented. He noted that amid the testing times, where freedom of expression through PECA has been curtailed, politics has been reduced to subservience and independence of the judiciary has been compromised, one would have expected CJ Afridi to have played a more proactive role. Despite facing resistance from some fellow judges, CJP Afridi, as chairman of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), has appointed 43 judges to superior courts, including the transfer of three judges from other high courts to the Islamabad High Court (IHC). The scale of these appointments during a single chief justice's short tenure is unprecedented. It is widely acknowledged that had CJP Afridi resisted, it would have been difficult for the government to induct judges aligned with its interests into the superior judiciary. However, there is a growing perception that he facilitated the government following the 26th constitutional amendment. Rather than convening a full court in line with the majority decision of the committee, CJP Afridi summoned a JCP meeting in November to consider Supreme Court judges for the constitutional bench. The government successfully secured the appointment of a judge aligned with its stance as the head of the constitutional bench. Subsequently, without waiting for a final decision on the 26th Amendment, CJP Afridi invited nominations for judges of the high courts and Supreme Court. At every step, he refrained from dampening the executive's expectations, particularly regarding judicial appointments. Following the alleged "court packing" in the Supreme Court, the likelihood of rolling back the 26th constitutional amendment appears slim under the current circumstances. A lawyer believed that the government was unlikely to accept a judicial decision striking down the 26th Amendment. For the first time, the judiciary appears weaker than the executive. Former additional attorney general Waqar Rana described recent developments as defining moments for Pakistan's future, saying that the events of February 10 have actually determined the future course of the nation for the next few decades. Reflecting on history, he drew parallels with past judicial compromises. "If history is any guide, it reminds me of CJ Munir, who was appointed CJ of the federal court in 1954 out of turn bypassing Bengali judges and Justice Cornelius, who was senior to him." "He then obliged the Governor-General by fixing judicial stamp of approval upon the unconstitutional dissolution of the constituent assembly," he further recalled. He said democracy was derailed for over two decades, and the first free elections were held in 1970. In the absence of an independent judiciary, there is no democracy and no freedom. Pakistan has seemingly braced for an undemocratic system, and the handpicked judiciary is going to look the other way. Despite the desire of powerful quarters, the government has yet to succeed in elevating judges of its choice from the Lahore High Court. A fresh debate has now sparked over whether the scales have tipped in the government's favour if a full court is constituted to hear challenges to the 26th Amendment. Four Supreme Court judges had urged CJP Afridi to put the JCP meeting on hold until a verdict was delivered on petitions challenging the amendment. A 'dangerous coalition' Former additional attorney general Tariq Mahmood Khokhar warned of a growing nexus between the executive and judiciary. "We are witnessing a dangerous coalition between the executive and judiciary, boldly undermining the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan," he added. He pointed out that regardless of the government's lack of constitutional, democratic and moral legitimacy, it has continued its efforts to bring the judiciary under its control. He noted that the JCP, now an instrument of the government, has become little more than a tool in the hands of the ruling authorities. "Its recent appointments to the high court and Supreme Court mark the erosion of judicial independence, signalling a grave threat to the integrity of our legal system." However, he noted that the overt assault on the judiciary will not go unchallenged. "Lawyers, the public, and independent media have already expressed their outrage, standing firm against such a blatant encroachment." "Constitutional guarantees and Pakistan's international commitments to uphold judicial independence have been disregarded. The loss of judicial autonomy directly undermines democracy and the rule of law." Expressing deep concern over judicial complicity, he said, "Our judiciary, with its tumultuous history, has hit a new low. It is all the more tragic that some members of the judiciary, having learned nothing from past mistakes, are complicit in this erosion of their own institution." Highlighting the gravity of the situation, he concluded, "In a country already grappling with numerous crises, this new crisis is both reckless and destructive. It is a grave error – one that will have lasting repercussions for Pakistan's future".
