Latest news with #SJC
Iraq Business
5 days ago
- Politics
- Iraq Business
Judge Zidan statement on Khor Abdullah Dispute: IBN Explainer
By John Lee. The President of Iraq's Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), Dr Faiq Zidan, has issued a statement regarding the legal dispute about the Khor Adbullah waterway, between Iraq and Kuwait. Here are the main points: Background and Legal Framework: The Iraq-Kuwait navigation agreement for Khor Abdullah was signed in 2012 as a technical response to post-1990 invasion issues. Iraq ratified it through Law No. 42 of 2013 using a simple majority vote, and it became internationally binding under the UN framework. Initial Court Decision (2014): The Federal Supreme Court initially upheld the treaty's constitutionality in 2014, distinguishing between laws governing treaty ratification processes (requiring two-thirds majority) and laws ratifying specific treaties (requiring simple majority). This decision achieved res judicata status, providing legal finality and protection from future appeals. Controversial Reversal (2023): In September 2023, the same court reversed its 2014 decision, declaring the ratification law unconstitutional and requiring a two-thirds majority. The court justified this reversal using Article 45 of its internal rules, claiming "constitutional and public interest" grounds. Systemic Legal Consequences: Dr. Zidan argues this reversal creates catastrophic implications: it would retroactively invalidate over 400 international agreements Iraq ratified by simple majority over two decades, potentially dismantling Iraq's entire international treaty framework and creating international liability. Constitutional and Procedural Violations: The statement contends the court exceeded its authority by: Using internal regulations to expand judicial powers beyond statutory law Violating the principle of res judicata by annulling a final judgment Acting without proper constitutional authorization for such reversals Creating legislative vacuum and diplomatic instability Legal Assessment: Dr. Zidan concludes that the 2014 decision was constitutionally sound and internationally compliant, while the 2023 reversal lacked proper legal grounding and generated harmful legal and diplomatic consequences for Iraq. Click here to read the full statement in Arabic. The full text of the statement in English, according to the SJC website, is shown below: The Waves of Khor Abdullah Between Two Contradictory Decisions The agreement regulating navigation in Khor Abdullah, signed on April 29, 2012, between the Republic of Iraq and the State of Kuwait, represents a technical and administrative response to the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and the subsequent border demarcation under UN Security Council Resolution No. 833 of 1993. Article Six of the agreement clearly states that it "does not affect the borders between the two parties in Khor Abdullah as determined by Security Council Resolution No. 833 of 1993." The Iraqi Council of Ministers approved the draft ratification law on November 12, 2012. It was then passed by the Iraqi Parliament by a simple majority under Law No. 42 of 2013 and published in the Iraqi Official Gazette, issue No. 4299, dated November 25, 2013. The ratification documents were deposited with the United Nations, and a copy was sent to the International Maritime Organization. Consequently, the agreement entered into force and became binding under the principle of pacta sunt servanda, a fundamental norm in international law meaning "agreements must be respected." At the same time, ratification procedures were completed in the Kuwaiti National Assembly. When the constitutionality of the ratification law was appealed, the Federal Supreme Court issued Decision No. 21/Federal/2014 on December 18, 2014. It distinguished between the law governing the treaty ratification process - which requires a two-thirds majority per Article 61/Fourth of the Constitution - and the law ratifying a specific treaty, which only requires a simple majority under Article 59/Second. The court rejected the case due to a lack of constitutional or legal basis, affirming the treaty's domestic legitimacy and protecting it from future appeals. The ruling thus acquired the force of res judicata (final judgment) under Article 105 of the Evidence Law, which gives binding force to final rulings so long as the parties, subject matter, and cause remain unchanged. This legal position remained stable until the Federal Supreme Court heard the consolidated cases No. 105 and 194/Federal/2023 on September 4, 2023. The court ruled Law No. 42 of 2013 unconstitutional, reversing its previous decision (No. 21/Federal/2014), on the basis that a two-thirds majority vote is required and citing Article 45 of its internal rules, which permits reversal "whenever constitutional and public interest require." If the two-thirds majority condition adopted in the 2023 decision is applied retroactively, it would automatically invalidate more than 400 international agreements previously ratified by simple majority, rendering all of them void due to failure to meet the new quorum. This would, in effect, dismantle the entire framework of international agreements Iraq has concluded over the past two decades. Furthermore, the decision undermines the legal stability of treaty-based arrangements deposited with the United Nations, potentially triggering international liability for Iraq. In Iraqi legislative practice, judicial annulment is an exceptionally regulated measure. Article 13(First/1) of the Judicial Organization Law limits this power to the General Authority of the Federal Court of Cassation - not to any other court - and imposes strict conditions: the annulment must concern an abstract legal principle, not a final ruling; it must be referred by one of the cassation panels; and it must be justified with an explanatory decision showing urgent need, without affecting legal positions or acquired rights. These restrictions safeguard legal certainty and uphold the principle of finality enshrined in Article 105 of the Evidence Law, preventing any judicial authority from annuling conclusive rulings under the pretext of reform or development. Although neither the Constitution nor the Law of the Federal Supreme Court grants it the power of reversal, the court added Article 45 to its internal regulations, stating that it may annul a previous principle... whenever required by constitutional or public interest." This inclusion goes beyond the procedural nature of internal regulations and violates the principle of legal hierarchy, since internal rules rank below statutory law and cannot expand judicial powers. Even more troubling is that the court, in its September 4, 2023, decision, did not simply reverse a principle, but annulled its own final 2014 ruling regarding the Khor Abdullah agreement - labeling this annulment as a reversal, although Article 45 states overruling pertains to "principles," not "judgments." In doing so, the court violated the principle of res judicata and created a legislative vacuum and diplomatic instability, as the annulled ruling had underpinned a treaty deposited with the United Nations. Accordingly, any so-called " annulment" that does not meet these strict conditions - mainly if it targets a final judgment or is issued by an unauthorized body - constitutes a legal nullity and inflicts direct harm on the rule of law and public trust in the judiciary. From this trajectory, it becomes evident that the 2014 decision aligned with constitutional provisions and international legal norms, achieving legal certainty domestically and internationally. In contrast, the 2023 decision lacked constitutional and legal grounding, and generated significant legal and international repercussions. Faiq Zidan July 23, 2025
Express Tribune
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
SJC disposes of 19 misconduct complaints
The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on Saturday disposed of 19 complaints filed against various high and apex courts' justices under Article 209. It also decided to defer proceedings on five other complaints lodged by different individuals. The SJCthe constitutional forum that can hold superior court judges accountablemet at the Supreme Court in Islamabad under the chairmanship of the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP), Yahya Afridi. SC's Justice Munib Akhtar, Lahore High Court (LHC) Chief Justice Aalia Neelum and Sindh High Court (SHC) Chief Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar attended the meeting. SC's senior puisne judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah also participated in the meeting through video link. According to sources, the council deliberated on the suggestion of CJP Afridi to announce names of the judges against whom complaints were disposed of. The SJC later decided to keep those names confidential. The Supreme Court's press release also did not specify which judges the five deferred complaints are against as well as the nature of the 19 resolved complaints. The council also approved the proposed draft of the Supreme Judicial Council Secretariat Service Rules 2025. However, it decided that the proposed amendments to the inquiry procedures and code of conduct required further consideration from legal and drafting perspectives. Article 209 of the Constitution deals with the composition and functions of the SJC.
Business Recorder
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
SJC decides 19 complaints, defers 5
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), unanimously, decided 19 complaints out of 24, and deferred five for the time being. In February, the SJC had examined as many as 46 complaints against constitutional office-holders, disposed of 40 of them, sought comments on five complaints and asked for further information in one case. According to a press release, issued by PRO SC on Saturday, the Council examined 24 complaints under Article 209 of the Constitution. It said, '19 complaints were unanimously decided to be filed while five others were deferred for the time being.' The Council meeting was held under the chairmanship of Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, who is also Chairman of the SJC at Supreme Court, Islamabad. It was attended by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah (present through video link), Justice Munib Akhtar, Chief Justice Lahore High Court Aalia Neelum and Chief Justice Sindh High Court Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar. The sources said that during the meeting a proposal by CJP Yahya was placed before the members that action should be taken against those complainants who file frivolous applications against the judges of the superior courts in order to discourage such practice. However, the Council did not approve it, and also preferred that judges whose names are cleared by the SJC are not disclosed. The Council discussed all the agenda items one by one. The proposed draft of Supreme Judicial Council Secretariat Service Rules, 2025 was approved by the council, while it was resolved that procedure of enquiry and amendments in the Code of Conduct needed to be examined from legal and drafting point of view; therefore, these required further deliberation. Six judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Justice Saman Raffat Imtiaz, on March 25, 2024 had written a letter to the SJC against the alleged 'interference' and 'intimidation' by the 'operatives of intelligence agencies.' In their letter, they sought guidance from the SJC with regard to 'the duty of a judge to report and respond to actions on part of members of the executive, including operatives of intelligence agencies that seek to interfere with discharge of his/ her official functions and qualify as intimidation'. Former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa in response to their letter held various meetings with the Supreme Court judges and even with the Prime Minister. He then formed a one-man Commission comprising ex-CJP Tassaduq Hussain Jillani to probe the allegations of the IHC judges. However, Justice Tassaduq, due to trolling on social media declined to head the commission. Ex-CJP Faez then took a suo moto and constituted a seven-member bench to examine the IHC judges' concerns. The bench conducted three hearings on it. However, Justice Yahya, who was also a member of the bench, opposed the suo moto and recused from the bench. He in his order had proposed that as the IHC judges wrote a letter to the SJC; therefore, the Council should do something about it. Justice Yahya after becoming Chief Justice of Pakistan summoned the SJC meeting, wherein Justice Munib was appointed as head of a committee to propose amendments to the code of conduct. The sources said, in today's (July 12) Council meeting, Justice Munib tabled a comprehensive report in that regard. The Council members after examining the report resolved that the procedure of enquiry and amendments in the Code of Conduct needed to be examined from legal and drafting point of view therefore these required further deliberation. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
CJP summons SJC meeting
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi has summoned a Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) meeting on July 12 to review pending complaints and consider amendments to the SJC rules. The Council is headed by CJP Yahya Afridi, and comprises two senior most judges of the Supreme Court; i.e., Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar, and two senior Chief Justices of High Courts; i.e., Justice Aalia Neelum, Chief Justice of Lahore High Court (LHC), and Justice S M Attique Shah, Chief Justice of Peshawar High Court (PHC). The Supreme Court's PRO on February 7, 2025 issued Judicial Performance report on the completion of CJP Yahya Afridi's 100 Days. According to that, the SJC had examined 46 complaints under Article 209 of the Constitution received against constitutional officeholders, out of which, 40 were disposed of, whereas, comments in five complaints were sought, and one was sent for information. Six judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) – Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, and Justice Saman Raffat Imtiaz on March 25, 2024 had written a letter to the SJC against the alleged 'interference' and 'intimidation' by the 'operatives of intelligence agencies.' In the letter, they sought guidance from the SJC with regard to the duty of a 'judge to report and respond to actions on part of members of the executive, including operatives of intelligence agencies that seek to interfere with discharge of his/ her official functions and qualify as intimidation'. Former Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa on their letter had taken a suo moto and constituted a seven-member bench to examine the IHC judges' concerns. However, Justice Yahya opposed the suo moto and recused from the bench. Justice Faez also formed one-man Commission comprising ex-CJP Tassaduq Hussain Jillani to probe the allegations of the IHC judges. However, Justice Tassaduq due to social media declined to head the commission. After that no further progress was made in that respect. Following the IHC judges' letter, complaints were filed against five judges of the IHC, which have been pending. The Judicial Performance report also stated that significant reforms were implemented to enhance efficiency, transparency, accountability, and accessibility in the justice sector. A key aspect of these reforms includes the swift resolution of complaints against constitutional officeholders, ensuring accountability mechanisms function efficiently, and upholding public confidence in the judiciary. The amendments in the Supreme Judicial Council Code of Conduct and Procedure of Enquiry 2005 were considered. However, sources shared that Justice Munib was given task to propose the amendments in the SJC Code. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
SJC meeting summoned after seven-month hiatus
After a break of almost seven months, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi has summoned a meeting of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on July 12. The SJC is a constitutional body empowered to proceed against judges of the superior courts on charges of misconduct. Currently, CJP Afridi serves as its chairman. Other members include Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Lahore High Court Chief Justice Alia Neelum and Sindh High Court Chief Justice Junaid Ghaffar. The council is presently examining various complaints of misconduct against superior court judges. During its previous meeting in December last year, the Council discussed proposed amendments to the Code of Conduct for Judges under Article 209(8) of the Constitution, as well as revisions to the Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Enquiry, 2005. A committee headed by Justice Munib Akhtar was constituted to prepare the proposed amendments to both the Code of Conduct and the enquiry procedure. It is expected that the committee will present its proposals at the upcoming meeting. Last year, six Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges had sought guidance from the SJC regarding interference by executive agencies in judicial functions. However, instead of taking up the matter within the SJC, then Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa initiated suo motu proceedings on the issue.
