PREFACE

On every occasion that Military has taken over power, the superior courts of
Pakistan have allied themselves with them. The judiciary has repeatedly relied on the doctrine of
necessity, thus allowing the dictators to rule the people beyond the pale of Constitution and the
Law. The judiciary’s lust for power has led to conspiracies amongst the judges against their own
colleague judges. The Court has been divided for so long. In the process its independence has
been seriously undermined. It has failed to follow its own precedents in the cases of Al-Jehad
Trust and Asad Ali.

The conduct of the judiciary weakened the judicial system so much so that on
military takeover by General Musharaf, the judges were forced to make oath under the PCO.
Certain judges did not make oath including the Chief Justice of Pakistan. Justice Irshad Hassan
Khan was sworn in as Chief Justice of Pakistan and other judges who made oath with him had to
assure the Government of their support. Thus these judges were so cowered down by the Military
Regime that it has nothing to fear from them. This is the state of affairs in which the judiciary is
working presently. Since the military Government wants favourable verdicts, the Supreme Court
accepted Musharaf as President. General Musharaf in return extended the age of retirement of
judges by three years.

It is in such a situation that we have seen that the judgements of the superior
courts have lost all credibility. Corruption in judiciary is widely known. Rulers are allowed
powers to remove any judge under the pretext of PCO. The junior judges are appointed Chief
Justices of High Courts. The judges convict the former Prime Minister and her husband on a
telephone call of the Law Minister. The Supreme Judicial Council has been rendered ineffective.
The doors of justice are closed. Judges misbehave with lawyers but release the contemnors under
the pressure of the government. The judges of accountability courts act exclusively on the desire
of the Government. The people have been looking upto the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to
come forward and perform their obligation towards the people of Pakistan. We, members of legal
fraternity, have always raised our voice against the excesses by the judiciary or against the
judiciary.

In such situation it was felt necessary to make these facts public for the people of
Pakistan. On my proposal, Pakistan Bar Council decided to publish White Paper on the role of
judiciary. A Special Committee was formed under my Chairmanship. Messrs H. Shakil Ahmad,
Hamid Khan, Hafiz Abdul Rehman Ansari, Muhammad Kazim Khan, Rasheed A. Razvi, Abdul
Haleem Pirzada, Farooq H. Naik, Mian Abbas Ahmad and Qazi Muhammad Anwar were
nominated as members of the Committee.

The white paper is primarily focused on the last four years. However, many
earlier incidents, decisions and conduct of the judiciary are also mentioned. It does not mean that
those before the present lot were all honest and independent or that the Bar Council has
condoned them. Due to shortage of time and funds we are unable to publish a comprehensive
white paper at present. We will however publish white paper on earlier conduct of the judiciary
and its judgements in future. Pakistan Bar Council has made this effort in the best interest of the
country with the hope that it will galvanize the public opinion which would set things right in the
judiciary in near future. This effort is aimed at restoring independence of judiciary.

I am thankful to the learned members of the Special Committee for putting in a lot
of work in finalizing the draft of the White Paper and for making valuable input. I am grateful to
the Pakistan Bar Council for thoroughly reading and approving the draft of the White Paper. I
owe debt of gratitude to Mr. Muhammad Arshad, Secretary, Pakistan Bar Council and other
members of the staff for their hard work and cooperation. I appreciate Mr. Gulzar Ahmad,
Assistant Secretary, for taking pains in composing the White Paper and it appendices.

MUHAMMAD YOUSUF LEGHARI

CHAIRMAN
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON WHITE PAPER
Page 1 of 63
 PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL
2000 - 2005.

(1) Mr. M. Makhdoom Ali Khan Chairman

Attorney-General for Pakistan
(2) Mian Abbas Ahmed Vice-Chairman
(3) Mr. H. Shakeel Ahmad Member
(4) Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah Member
(5) Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh Member
(6) Mr. Hamid Khan Member
(7) Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa Member
(8) Hafiz Abdul Rehman Ansari Member
(9) Mr. Muhammad Kazim Khan Member
(10) Mr. Rasheed A. Razvi Member
(11) Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi Member
(12) Mr. Abu'l Inam Member
(13) Mr. Abdul Haleem Pirzada Member
(14) Mr. Farooq H. Naik Member
(15) Mr. Muhammad Yousuf Leghari Member
(16) Qazi Muhammad Anwar Member
(17) Qazi Muhammad Jamil Member
(18) Malik Rab Nawaz Noon Member
(19) Mian Abdul Qaddous Member
(20) Raja Mahmood Akhtar Member
(21) Mr. Muhammad Arshed Secretary

* as in May, 2003.

Page 2 of 63
 WHITE PAPER ON THE ROLE OF JUDICIARY

Introductory

The role that military and judiciary have played in Pakistan during the past fifty years has
led to repeated constitutional crises, depoliticization of national issues, interference of
bureaucratic and military intelligence agencies in politics, ascendancy of military over civilian
authority and disaffection and estrangement of the people of Pakistan from the political process
and governance. The decline in credibility and independence of judiciary began with the
appointment of Justice Muhammad Munir as Chief Justice of Pakistan in the year 1953. Under
his leadership the Federal Court gave controversial judgement in Maulvi Tameez-ud-Din Khan’s
case upholding the action of the then Governor General dissolving the Constituent Assembly in
1954 1. This judgement paved the way for the judiciary in future to justify patently arbitrary,
malicious and capricious acts and orders of the Executive on hyper technical grounds or self-
serving theories or concepts. When the Martial Law was declared in October, 1958, the Supreme
Court, once again led by Chief Justice Munir, upheld the imposition of Martial Law on the basis
of Hans Kelsen’s General Theory of Law and State in Dosso’s case. The court held that a
victorious revolution or a successful coup d’etat is an internationally recognized legal method of
changing the constitution 2.

It took more than 13 years for the Supreme Court to reverse the outrageous judgement in
Dosso’s case when it declared General Yahya Khan usurper in Asma Jilani’s case 3. However,
the judgement only came after the overthrow of the usurper. The real test of independence of the
Supreme Court would have been if the judgement had been rendered while Yahya was still in
power. When the Supreme Court was put to test in Nusrat Bhutto’s case, it floundered once
again. In this case the Supreme Court upheld the military take over and imposition of Martial
Law by General Zia ul Haq on the touchstone of doctrine of necessity 4.

Although judiciary cooperated wholeheartedly with the regime of General Zia yet it
ultimately faced humiliation under the Provisional Constitution Order 1981. A number of judges
were either sacked or forced to quit. They included General Zia’s chief benefactors like Justice
Anwar-ul-Haq, the then Chief Justice of Pakistan, and Justice Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain the Chief
Justice of Lahore High Court, who heading a bench of five judges, had sentenced Mr. Zulfiqar
Ali Bhutto to death. The judiciary had the audacity to up-hold the PCO of 1981 even though it
had stripped the judiciary off its independence and credibility. It is, however, appreciable that
two judges of the Supreme Court, two judges of the Baluchistan High Court and four judges of
the Lahore High Court refused to make oath under the PCO 5.

Even after the death of General Zia ul Haq, the judiciary has been up-holding the orders
of the Presidents and Governors dissolving the National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies
respectively under their discretionary powers. In Haji Saifullah’s case the order of General Zia
dissolving the National Assembly on 29 May 1988 was declared invalid but the judgement came
after the death of General Zia ul Haq 6. One of his sons, Ijaz ul Haq, had the audacity to make a
public statement that no such judgement would have been delivered had his father been alive.
The dissolution of National Assembly and dismissal of the government of Beanazir by President
Ghulam Ishaq Khan in 1990 was up-held by the Supreme Court in Khawaja Tariq Rahim’s case
7
. The dissolution of National Assembly and dismissal of Beanazir Bhutto’s second government
by President Farooq Leghari in 1996 was also up-held by the Supreme Court 8. Only in the case
of dissolution of National Assembly in April 1993 and dismissal of Nawaz Sharif as Prime
Minister that the Supreme Court set aside the order of dissolution and revived the National
Assembly and reinstated the Nawaz Shareif Government 9. The explanation generally given for
this departure in the consistent record of the judiciary in up-holding the undemocratic orders and
acts of the Governor Generals, Presidents and Martial Law Administrators is that at that time the
civil and military establishment was divided over the actions of the President Ghulam Ishaq
Khan in dismissing the government of Nawaz Sharif and the Supreme Court felt free to give
judgement without any pressure on it. There were rumours afloat that consideration other that

Page 3 of 63
constitutionality and legality of the dissolution order prevailed with the judges on the Bench or
some of them 10.

After this brief introduction, this paper would focus on the events of 1997 when Supreme
Court got divided against itself and later the relationship between the military and the judiciary
ever since General Pervez Musharaf took over power on 12 October 1999.

The Supreme Court divided: 1997

Justice Sajjad Ali Shah had been appointed as Chief Justice in preference to three of his
senior colleagues in June 1994 which caused quite an unrest amongst the members of the
judiciary and the Bar. However, he improved his image with the judiciary, the Bar and the
people by giving judgement in Judges’ case 11 in 1996 upholding the principle of seniority for
appointment as Chief Justice. He, however, avoided judgement on the validity of his own
appointment being in violation of this very principle. Had he stepped down at that juncture he
would have made for himself a place in history. But unfortunately this was not to be.

This judgement led to serious confrontation between Justice Sajjad and Prime Minister
Benazir Bhuitto which became an important factor in dissolution of National Assembly in
November 1996 and consequential dismissal of Benazir government. To add insult to injury,
Justice Sajjad, heading a bench of judges of his own choice without regard to the tradition of
hearing such cases by the Full Court, dismissed the petition of Benazir Bhutto of the National
Assembly 12.

Although Justice Sajjad was a benefactor of Nawaz Sharif and had paved the way for his
coming back into power, if did not take long before serious differences developed between them.
Trouble started when he took suo moto notice of the hand-cuffing of certain officers of Water &
Sanitation Agency in Faisalabad on the verbal orders of the Prime Minister, Justice Sajjad later
set them free on bail. The situation came to a head on 20 August 1997 when Justice Sajjad
recommended five judges from three High Courts for elevation to Supreme Court. There was
strong resistance to there recommendations from the executive, particularly the Prime Minister.

In order to defeat the recommendations, the government notified a reduction in the

number of judges of the Supreme Court to twelve from seventeen, a number fixed as far back as
1986. This was done to preclude the making of appointments altogether. However, Justice Sajjad
struck back and suspected the notification. The government had to eat humble pie and withdraw
the notification on 16 September 1997. Nevertheless it continued to resist the appointment. On
30 October 1997, a three-member Bench headed by Justice Sajjad passed an order invoking
Article 190 of the Constitution asking the President to appoint his recommendee five judges
since the government had failed to do so. The President warned the government that he might be
compelled to notify the elevation of those judges. At this, Nawaz capitulated and ordered
notification of appointment of these judges.

When the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was suspended by a three member
Bench headed by the Chief Justice, there was strong reaction from the Prime Minister and
members of his Cabinet and members of Parliament from the PML(N) and its allied parties. In
his press conference, the Prime Minister called the order of suspension ‘illegal’ and
‘unconstitutional’. There were speeches in Parliament in which strong remarks were made
against the Chief Justice and the members lamented that his order was violate of the supremacy
and sovereignty of Parliament. These speeches led to contempt proceedings against the Prime
Minister and members of Parliament before the Supreme Court. Nawaz Sharif made appearance
in these proceedings before a Bench of five judges headed by the Chief Justice himself. Though
he did not tender an unqualified apology, he expressed his regrets in a written statement over the
remarks made. However, the matter was not dropped despite expression of regrets.

By November 1997, the confrontation had spread and battle lines were drawn between
the executive and the Parliament on the one hand, and the President and the Chief Justice on the
other. At this point, the military leadership was sucked into the situation. It was the army chief
who became an arbitrator between the Prime Minister, the President and the Chief Justice. He
Page 4 of 63
earned a respite for the Prime Minister by getting the contempt case and other cases against him
adjounrned for about a week, from 20 November to 27 November.

The government used the respite of one week (20-27 November) to its full advantage. It
was aware of the differences and the resentments building amongst the judges of Supreme Court
against the Chief Justice due to his autocratic style. On 18 November, a two-member Supreme
Court Bench in Quetta headed by Justice Irshad Hassan Khan had entertained a petition against
the appointment of the Chief Justice on the ground that he was not the senior-most judge when
appointed. However, no interim order was passed on the petition and the case was referred to the
Chief Justice for constituting a full court to decide the matter. It was indeed a warning to him of
things to come. They stopped short of restraining the Chief Justice from performing his
functions, but this situation did not prevail for long. On 26 November, a day before the hearing
on the contempt case against the Prime Minister was to resume, a petition was presented before
the Registry of the Supreme Court in Quetta, challenging the appointment of Justice Sajjad as
Chief Justice. Initially, the petition was not entertained by the office in Quetta because under the
Supreme Court Rules, a petition under the original jurisdiction can only be filed and entertained
at the Principal Seat in Islamabad. Subsequently that day, the Bench of two judges in Quetta,
again headed by Justice Irshad Hassan Khan, entertained it and passed an interim order
restraining the Chief Justice from performing his functions 13.

The restraining order touched off the most bizarre events. The Chief Justice and the
judges (opposed to him) simply ran amok. Justice Sajjad, sitting alone in Chamber in Islamabad,
suspended the judicial order of the Quetta Bench through an administrative order. This led to
another proceeding at the Quetta Bench the same evening in which a third judge, Justice Nasir
Aslam Zahid, also joined in and suspended the suspension order of the Chief Justice on the
evening of 26 November 1997 at the Judges’ Rest House in Quetta. In this three member-Bench
judgement, it is stated that the petition of Asad Ali was not originally entertained at the Quetta
Registry on the ground that petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, as per practice
generally followed, were to be filed at the main Registry, Islamabad. However, despite such
practice the Senior Judge in Quetta, Justice Irshad Hassan Khan, directed the Assistant Registrar
on 26 November 1997 to entertain the petition of Asad Ali, diarize it in the relevant register, and
place it before the Court for appropriate orders.

Simultaneous to the events in Quetta, a similar petition was presented before the
Peshawar Registry of the Supreme Court. A two-judge Bench in Peshawar entertained a petition
on 27 November 1997 under Article 184(3) of the Constitution and dispensed with the rule
requiring the presentation of such a petition at the main Registry, Islamabad and passed interim
order restraining Justice Sajjad from passing any judicial or administrative order in his capacity
as the Chief Justice of Pakistan. This Bench consisting of Justice Saeeduzzaman Sidduqui and
Justice Fazal Illahi Khan also directed the Registry of the Supreme Court to take immediate steps
and place the matter forthwith before the senior puisne judge, Justice Ajmal Mian, in Karachi
and obtain appropriate instructions for formation of the Bench to hear such cases (entertained in
Quetta and Peshawar).

Subsequently, on 28 November 1997, Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, after being

informed that the senior-most judge, Justice Ajmal Mian, had declined to assume the office of
Acting Chief Justice, assumed unto himself the administrative powers of the Chief Justice and
ordered the constitution of a full fifteen-member Bench (excluding the Chief Justice and Justice
Ajmal Mian) in Islamabad to hear the petition against the Chief Justice.

On 27 November, the Quetta decision of the three judges, passed on the evening of 26
November 1997, was suspended, this time by a five-member Bench in Islamabad, headed by
Justice Sajjad himself, by a majority of four to one. Some of the PML(N) lawyers who were also
members of Parliament created a scene in the courtroom, becoming altogether hysterical. They
kept shouting that the Chief Justice had been suspended and therefore, could not preside over the
Bench.

On 28 November, the Supreme Court Bench headed by the Chief Justice took up the
contempt case against the Prime Minister. Under a pre-planned move, PML(N0 workers stormed
the Supreme Court building, thus preventing the bench from continuing the hearings. It is
Page 5 of 63
common knowledge that PML(N) workers from various places in the Punjab were taken to
Islamabad in buses under the leadership of their respective MNAs and MPAs. They attacked the
building and the police contingent present there stood aside like spectators.

In this situation, a delegation of Bar representatives belonging to the Pakistan Bar

Council, Supreme Court Bar Association, Lahore High Court Bar Association, and the Punjab
Bar Council 14, went to the Supreme Court on 1 st of December 1997 to make a final effort to save
the Court from complete dissipation and humiliation. Unfortunately, the delegation found the
Supreme Court totally divided. The Chief Justice and four other judges present in his chamber
were ready to sit as a Bench on his orders. Ten judges led by Justice Saeed uz Zaman Siddiqui
had assembled in his chamber. Justice Ajmal Mian wisely stayed out of this conflict and was
alone in his chamber. The air was filled with tension. The Chief Justice, having realized by now
that the battle was lost, had mellowed down and was receptive to the Bar delegation. He
immediately accepted the suggestion that in order to show solidarity they would not be working
that day. However, he kept insisting that if others assembled as a Bench, then he along with the
other four judges would assemble as a Bench. He showed willingness to confer with all the
judges in order to address their grievances and iron out the differences. The other group of
judges was in an aggressive mood. Initially, their response to the bar delegation was negative 15
but after some persuasion, they accepted the suggestion to sit with the Chief Justice and other
colleagues to discuss their differences.

In these circumstances, it was a major achievement to bring together all seventeen judges
of the Supreme Court in the same room. It seemed that they had not met for quite some time. The
Bar representatives sat and had tea with them. The delegation requested all the judges to sort out
their differences and save the image of the judiciary from being tarnished. In these
circumstances, it was a major achievement to bring together all seventeen Judges. It was also
stated that, in the view of the Bar, Justice Sajjad was the chief justice and should be accepted as
such by his colleagues for the good of the institution. However, the Chief Justice was requested
to address the genuine grievances of his colleagues. After that, the Bar representative left the
room, hoping that something good would come out. The meeting went on for one and a half
hours. It reduced the tension for the time being and it was decided that, in deference to the
wishes of the Bar delegation, no Bench would function that day.

Initially, a formula was evolved under which three Benches were to be formed for the
following day, a five-member Bench headed by the Chief Justice to hear cases against the Prime
Minister, a seven-member Bench headed by Justice Siddiqui to hear cases against the Chief
Justice, and another five member bench for other cases. The underlying understanding was that
the Bench of the Chief Justice would adjourn the cases against the Prime Minister for three
weeks and the cases against the Chief Justice would be disposed of. The formula did not work
because some of the judges in the opposition particularly Justice Irshad (who seemed to be in
constant contact with the government) demanded that the Chief Justice should adjourn all cases
against the Prime Minister for three months so that, in the meantime, he would retire 16. The
Chief Justice refused to accept the suggestion because he took it as dictation. Thus, a deadlock
ensued. It became an open secret that the origin of the differences between the two groups of
judges was not with in but outside the Court, and that they were working on their respective
agendas of protecting or advancing conflicting interests. The institution of the Supreme Court
had obviously fallen prey to such diverse interests.

On 2 December 1997, the Supreme Court committed collective suicide and rival Benches
met in the Supreme Court building. The Chief Justice, instead of taking steps to diffuse the
situation, became even more erratic. Heading a three-member Bench, he suspended the Thirteen
Amendment without adequate hearing, thus restoring the President’s powers to dissolve the
National Assembly. The rival ten-member Bench immediately held the order abeyance and
restrained the President from acting on such a ruling 17. In a separate order, it was held that
Justice Ajmal Mian should immediately assume the administrative and judicial powers and
functions of the Chief Justice.

Page 6 of 63
 State of judiciary on 12 October 1999.

At the outset, the military takeover on October 12, 1999 seemed to be an accidental one.
It appeared to be an institutional reaction to the repeated interference in the military affairs by the
then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif who had earlier removed an army chief and was bent upon
removing another and replacing him with his favourite. However, subsequent events have proved
that the move was not accidental. It was rather preplanned with an agenda to follow. The nation
was once again in the grip of Bonapartism and the seven point agenda announced on 17 October
1999 indicated that the military rule was likely to stay for a long time. Since the international
environment was not supportive of military rulers at that time, there was initially some soft
peddling on the part of military rulers. Martial Law was not proclaimed and the Constitution was
held in abeyance, not abrogated 18. A new and novel title of the Chief Executive was assumed by
the Army Chief and constitutionally elected President was allowed to continue for the time being
even if it was intended that he would be used only as a rubber stamp. The judiciary was also not
touched in the very beginning 19. Both Houses of Parliament and the Provincial Assemblies were
suspended 20.

The military rulers came out in their true colours when they announced their intention to
hold local government elections. It was once again obvious that military rulers, like their
predecessors, were planning to create their own political cadre through such an exercise and that
the military rule would be continued even after the general elections were held though it would
be given a civilian face.

The Supreme Court divided: 2000

Real exposure of the military rulers came about when the imposition of military rule was
challenged and petitions in this behalf were filed before the Supreme Court. By this time, the
military rulers had made sufficient inroads into the Supreme Court and had moles working
within the court who would be protecting rather advancing the interests of the military rulers.
The matter came to head when the judges of the superior courts were forced to make oath under
the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) on 26 January 2000 21. It appears now that
arrangements had already been made to create divisions within the Supreme Court. When the
Chief Justice Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui refused to make oath, he was virtually put under house
arrest till such time that those who had agreed to go along with the military rulers to make oath
under the PCO had actually done so. The result was that Chief Justice and five other judges 22 did
not make oath and had to quit and the remaining seven took oath under the PCO. The operation
to divide, weaken and emaciate the Supreme Court was successfully carried out by the military
rulers with the assistance of the “insiders” who saw the division within the court as an
opportunity to have one of them become Chief Justice even if it was at the expense of
independence and credibility of the judiciary. Subsequent events have demonstrated that Justice
Irshad, in collusion with the military junta, had been instrumental in the effort to divide the
Supreme Court and was thus rewarded by being sworn in as the Chief Justice and was later
appointed, on retirement, as Chief Election Commissioner.

Challenge to military takeover

Next critical stage arrived when the petitions challenging the imposition of military rule
came up for hearing. The petitioners in these cases should not have pressed these petitions
because the Supreme Court by then had taken oath under the PCO and had lost its authority and
capacity to decide any case under the Constitution. The judges of the Supreme Court hearing
these cases were beholden to the military ruler either for appointment as Chief Justice or for
being retained or appointed as judges. They were under an oath to defend PCO rather than the
Constitution.

Page 7 of 63
 It would have at least been an honest thing for Supreme Court not to adjudicate upon
these petitions for the reason that it could not do so after making oath under the PCO.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court under its new Chief Justice had promised more and committed
itself to protecting, rather enhancing the interests of the military rulers, though at a great cost to
the nation. Not only the military takeover was justified under the doctrine of state necessity but
the military regime was given three years to implement its avowed objects and agenda
announced on 17 October, 1999. The matter of judges of the Supreme Court who had refused to
make oath under PCO was held to be a closed and past transaction. This issue was not even
before the court and such finding was clearly self serving in order to secure incumbent judges in
their positions and to ensure that those judges who had refused to make oath under the PCO be
kept out. What a blatant display of self interest which was being justified by the beneficiary
judges in the garb of national interest. The removal of General Pervez Musharaf as Chief of
Army Staff on 12 October 1999 was held to be arbitrary, in violation of the principle of audi
alteram partem and thus ab initio void and of no legal effect. Moreover the Chief Executive was
vested with the power to amend the Constitution while a kind of embargo was imposed on
making amendments touching the salient features of the Constitution like the independence of
judiciary, federalism and parliamentary form of government 23. None of the parties before the
court sought power for the Chief Executive to amend the Constitution and it was given sui
generis. It was a harbinger of constitutional crises that has engulfed the country at present.

Removal of President Tarar

After the judgement in Zafar Ali Shah’s case, the military government steadily gained in
strength and confidence; all at the expense of independence of judiciary, supremacy of the
Constitution and the rule of law. The Supreme Court from this point onward regressed into the
position of a junior partner of the military rulers. It complied with all the wishes of the military
government regardless of its own previous judgements and verdicts which were being negated or
rendered redundant in the process. President Muhammad Rafiq Tarar was unceremoniously
removed and evicted from the President’s House and General Musharaf took over the office of
the President 24. The Chief Justice administered oath of office to General Musharaf without
taking into consideration constitutionally of his assumption of office of President. Such
assumption of office was never envisaged in the judgement in Zafar Ali Shah’s case because the
term of office of President Tarar was to outlast the period of three years given to Musharaf under
the said judgement.

Irshad rewarded

The Chief Justice Irshad, on retirement, was rewarded when he was appointed Chief
Election Commissioner. However, during this process, the then federal law secretary, Justice
Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, who was a junior judge of Lahore High Court (placed at No. 13 in
the list of seniority of the judges of the Lahore High Court) helped himself to an out of turn
appointment as judge of the Supreme Court. His appointment was clear negation of the decision
in Judges’ case and a clear abuse of the power enjoyed by the Chief Justice as Constitutional
Consultee in the matter of appointment of judges 25. The retiring Chief Justice obliged the Law
Secretary because the former was instrumental in his appointment as Chief Election
Commissioner after his retirement. This and other appointments of junior judges to the Supreme
Court were challenged before the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3)
of the Constitution by the Pakistan Bar Council and the Supreme Court Bar Association.
However, such appointments were upheld by the successor Chief Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, a
close relative of the Justice (R) Irshad Hassan Khan, presiding over a specially chosen bench of
judges, without regard to their seniority, predisposed to do so despite previous judgements of the
Supreme Court to the contrary. The Supreme Court thus negated the principle of seniority in the
matter of appointment of judges, a principle that the Court had itself laid down in its previous
judgements. This judgement destroyed the edifice built in the matter of appointment of judges as
Chief Justices or judges of the Supreme Court on the basis of seniority 26.

Page 8 of 63
 Judiciary and the fraudulent Referendum

The next test of the Supreme Court came about in April 2002, when General Mushraf
announced that he would be holding a referendum to continue himself in the office of President
for five years. The referendum was challenged before the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in a
number of constitutional petitions including one by the Supreme Court Bar Association. Clearly
the Constitution lays down special provisions for electing President with elaborate procedure and
that referendum could not be used as a devise for election as President. Yet General Musharaf
was once again helped by the Supreme Court in Hussain Ahmad V. Pervez Musharaf 27 by
declaring that the petitions before it were premature. The consequences of the referendum were
left to be determined at a proper forum (presumably the Parliament) at the appropriate time
(presumably after the general elections).

In the short order announced on 27 April 2002, it was stated that the questions of
consequences flowing from the holding of referendum were purely academic, hypothetical and
presumptive in nature and Supreme Court would leave the same to be determined at a proper
forum at the appropriate time. Months later, when the detailed reasons were announced, the
contents of the detailed judgement were altogether difference to the conclusions given in the
short order. In fact different conclusions were drawn and it was held that appeal to the political
and popular sovereign i.e. the people of Pakistan could not be termed as undemocratic and could
not be regarded as against the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Apparently after the
declaration of results of the farcical referendum on 30 April 2002 giving more that 98%
affirmative vote to General Musharaf, the Supreme Court changed its reasoning and conclusions
obviously to appease General Musharaf who now appeared to be firmly in the saddle of power.

Justice Tariq resigns

The motive behind appointment of Justice (R) Irshad as Chief Election Commissioner
was exposed during the process of referendum in April 2002. The Election Commissioner was
constituted under Election Commission Order, 2002 on 14 January 2002 with Justice (R) Irshad
as the Election Commissioner and Chairman of the Election Commission. In addition to him,
four members were to be appointed, one judge from each of the four Provincial High Courts 28.
The Election Commission was constituted with the purpose of holding general elections to the
National and Provincial Assemblies and the Senate. Justice Tariq Mahmood a judge of
Baluchistan High Court, was one of the members appointed to the Election Commission. After
announcement of referendum, Referendum Order was promulgated on 9 April 2002 which
provided that the referendum would be conducted by the Election Commission 29. Justice Tariq
took exception to this and voiced his dissent on the ground that Election Commission had been
constituted for holding elections to the Parliament and the Provincial Assemblies and that
holding of referendum was no concern of the Election Commission. Even otherwise, when he
attended the meeting of the commission after the announcement of referendum, he discovered
that preparations were being made and steps were being taken to hold a farcical referendum to
give five years to General Musharaf as President. Justice Tariq decided not to become party to
such a fraudulent exercise and chose to resign as a member of the Election Commission.

Irshad initially tried to browbeat him into withdrawing his resignation. When he stood his
ground, Irshad found a way out to discredit him by asking the Chief Justice of Baluchistan High
Court to send an ante dated request to the Election Commission to release Justice Tariq because
he was needed in the High Court for early disposal of cases. In this request, the Chief Justice of
Baluchistan High Court, Raja Fayyaz Ahmad also nominated Tariq Mahmood’s substitute on the
Election Commission. The idea was to show that Justice Tariq had not resigned but was released
from the Election Commission on the request of his Chief Justice. Justice Tariq was asked to
make a public statement to this effect. He balked at the idea of making such outright mis-
statement and refused to become a party to a fake exercise. He was then pressurized to resign his
office as judge of the Baluchistan High Court which he eventually did. It is to the credit of
Justice Tariq that he chose to resign the office of judge of High Court rather than be party to
Page 9 of 63
false and fake proceedings. He refused to make false public statement as demanded of him by
Justice (R) Irshad and the Chief Justice of Baluchistan High Court.
Legal Framework Order

Finally, repeated verdicts of the Supreme Court in favour of the military rulers
encouraged military regime to make extensive amendments in the Constitution by promulgating
the Legal Framework Order (LFO) on 21 August 2002. The amendments sought to be made
through LFO have far reaching consequences. They would have the effect of making the
Parliament, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister weak and insecure and the President all powerful.
The President would have unfettered discretion to dissolve the National Assembly and appoint a
caretaker government after such dissolution. National Security Council (NSC) would be
established with Chiefs of Armed Force as its members with a supervisory role on national
affairs. General Musharaf, through the LFO, had tried to perpetrate himself in office as President
on the basis of sham referendum of 30 April 2002. It enables a person is the service of Pakistan
as Chief of Army Staff to serve as President which is negation of clear provisions of the
Constitution 30.

The LFO is an effort to rewrite the Constitution by a military ruler under the dubious
authority conferred by the Supreme Court which itself had no such authority. The provisions of
LFO reflect the personal desire of General Musharaf to have the ultimate power to steer the ship
of the State according to the role he fancies for himself. It is an exercise to enslave and
subordinate the Constitution to the will of one person who is not even elected to any office and is
a member of the military service of Pakistan. He is not even qualified to stand for the office of
President of Pakistan.

Judiciary and the General Elections

Another important episode negating the independence of judiciary is worthy of mention.

In the Lahore High Court, where most of the constitutional controversies are generated, Gen.
Musharaf had appointed Justice Falak Sher as the Chief Justice in July 2000. He had previously
been ignored twice for this office because the earlier Chief Justices of Pakistan had opined
against his appointment as Chief Justice because in their view he might not be compatible with
other judges of the court. However, Justice Falak Sher served the military government to latter’s
complete satisfaction for more than two years. He made sure that all controversial constitutional
matters brought before the Lahore High Court or any sensitive issues for the military government
were either not entertained by the court or if they were entertained, they were delayed on one
pretext or the other, thus rendering them virtually redundant. However, he took pride in the fact
that he had come hard upon the corrupt judges in the subordinate judiciary in the Punjab and
either got a number of them removed from service during these two years or had them
suspended. He also proudly claimed that he had all subordinate judges of questionable reputation
removed from important position of District and Sessions Judge and only judges of
unimpeachable personal integrity were appointed against this position.

In early September 2002, when the general elections of October 2002 were approaching,
the military government, particularly the Governor of Punjab Lt. Gen. (R) Khalid Maqbool along
with his provincial administration and the intelligence agencies planned to rig the elections in
Punjab to benefit the party put together by the military regime, namely Pakistan Muslim League
(Q). Since the District and Sessions Judges would serve as District Returning Officers in the
general elections, therefore, the government wanted pliable judges of questionable reputation to
act as District Returning Officers in important district of the Punjab where wholesale rigging and
manipulation of results had to take place in collusion with the Chief Election Commissioner,
Justice (R) Irshad. Thus a list of judges who were willing to go along with the government in
rigging and manipulation of the results of the election was prepared by the government. Justice
Falak Sher was asked to appoint them as District and Sessions Judges in the districts where such
rigging and manipulation were to take place. Most of the names recommended in the list were of
the judges against whom Justice Falak Sher had either taken disciplinary action or had them
removed from the position of District and Sessions Judges and had relegated them to ineffective
posts. Justice Falak Sher balked at the idea of appointing these persons as District and Sessions

Page 10 of 63
Judges because that would have meant that he would be undoing all that he had done over the
previous two years.

The military government should have been beholden to Justice Falak Sher for his services
in protecting its interests. But due to his failure to deliver on its latest demand, it decided to
remove him from position of the Chief Justice and be sent to the Supreme Court against an
available vacancy. The next senior most judge, Justice Karamat Nazir Bhandari should have
appointed as per the dictum of judges’ case but even he could not be trusted by the military
government for rendering this dubious service. He was thus ignored and eventually appointed as
ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court who under the Constitution remain a judge of the High Court
but joins the sittings of the Supreme Court as temporary judge. The next senior most judge,
Justice Mrs. Fakhar-un-Nisa Khokhar was also deemed not reliable by the military government
due to her past association with the Peoples’ Party. She was also ignored. Eventually, Justice
Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, who was junior to above named judges, rendered the service required
of him by the military government and was rewarded with out of turn appointment as Chief
Justice of the Lahore High Court. Within a couple of days, he had all the honest District and
Sessions Judges transferred and in their place had the judges of questionable reputation posted as
desired by the military government. This appointment of Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court
was a result of a skillful manipulation which further compromised the independence of judiciary.

Recently, heading a Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Justice Iftikhar Hussain
Chaudhry has gone to the extent of declaring that General Musharaf can hold both offices of the
President and Chief of Army Staff at the same time under the Constitution. Such decisions only
establish that the judiciary has touched rock bottom in its degeneration and that its members
would spare no effort in degrading themselves in pleasing their masters, the military rulers 31.

Seniority principle again violated

The standards for appointment to judiciary further deteriorated when Additional Judges
of the Lahore High Court were appointed in 2002 from amongst those judges of the subordinate
courts who had served as Accountability Court judges. Their merit was that they had been
rendering judgements of conviction and sentencing the accused to severe punishments. The
seniority of these judges as District and Sessions Judges was totally ignored. Senior most District
and Sessions Judges in the Province of Punjab were ignored and five of the Lahore High Court
judges were appointed from amongst the District and Sessions Judges without any regard to their
seniority. This was not only shocking but totally violative of the judgement in Judges’ case
wherein the seniority was made an important criterion for appointment as judges or Chief
Justices Once again Chief Justice Riaz violated the previous judgements of his own court and
with a view to appear the military regime recommended appointment of junior judges from the
subordinate judiciary for appointment as High Court judges.

Extension in retirement age of judges: Judges rewarded.

The matter did not end there. Some of the incumbent members of the judiciary
particularly Chief Justice Riaz desired to be rewarded for the service he had rendered by giving
judgements repeatedly in favour of the military rulers. After all the power to amend the
Constitution was not conferred on the Chief Executive just like that and without any expectation
of return or reward. If the judges gave three years to a military regime to rule the country, why
should they not be favoured in a similar manner. The judges were rewarded by extending their
period of service for the same number of years through extending the age of retirement. This
was accomplished by an amendment in the LFO or the eve of general elections 32. General
Musharaf violated his own pronouncements made repeatedly while addressing the nation on
television that no amendment in the Constitution would be introduced unless it was circulated in
advance for soliciting public comments. Two constitutional amendment packages had been
circulated and none of them included the proposal of extending the retirement age of judges. This
amendment in LFO was brought about in a most secretive manner with thinly veiled collusion
between General Musharaf and Chief Justice Riaz. This was accomplished to protect their
mutual personal interests at the cost of the national interest 33. This dubious deal between the
Page 11 of 63
Chiefs of Military and Judiciary was signed and sealed in the stealth of the night as if it was a
commando operation 34. The judicial independence was mortgaged in return for three years
extension of service of the judges 35. The judiciary would remain frozen in its present deplorable
state for a period of three years because judges in office bartered their conscious in exchange for
an extension in the period of their tenure.

The incumbent Federal Law Secretary was instrumental in having the provision of
extension in retirement age signed by General Musharaf particularly when the General felt
himself vulnerable which was the case on the eve of general elections on 10 October 2002 or
thereabout. He was skeptical about the potential orientation of the Parliament as a result of the
general elections, though he had manipulated these elections by extensive use of administration
and intelligence agencies. Even then he wanted to have the support of a pliable Chief Justice who
had compromised himself completely and had delivered verdicts repeatedly in his favour and
would have no qualms of conscious in doing so in the future. The Chief Justice also used this
vulnerable moment to impress upon the General his past services in giving favourable verdicts
and desired an extension of three years in his tenure. To spread the spoils around, the Law
Secretary Justice Mansoor Ahmad was rewarded by Justice Riaz by having him nominated to the
International Criminal Tribunal which had been established to prosecute cases of genocide in
Rwanda. Justice Mansoor had not served as judge even for one year but he was preferred over all
senior and many competent judges for appointment to such coveted position 36. He was rewarded
for cleverly managing the extension in the tenure of judges.

The LFO is the product of dubious partnership between the military and the judiciary and
the extension in retirement age is designed to ensure perpetuation of the military rule behind the
façade of a civilian or civilinized government. The Supreme Court has touched its lowest when
its Chief Justice plaintively accepted enhancement in retirement age under most controversial
and, in view of the Bar, invalid and unconstitutional LFO.

State of judiciary at present

The Constitution and the judiciary at present are in deplorable state. Attempt is being
made by the military regime to force LFO down the throat of the Parliament and the judiciary.
The Constitution was revived in parts. Certain portions of the Constitution, particularly those
relating to floor crossing and disqualification of President were not revived so that the
government could engage in horse trading and Musharaf could continue as President while
remaining the Chief of Army Staff.

The representatives of the lawyers throughout Pakistan were extremely concerned about
the state of affairs in the country wherein judiciary was openly collaborating with the military
government. It had become amply clear that filing any petition involving an important
constitutional question before the Supreme Court would be a futile, rather counter productive
exercise. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would ensure that such a bench of judges be
formed which would deliver a verdict even more favourable than what was even desired by the
military government. In view of this serious situation the representatives of the Bar met on 6 July
2002 at Lahore and expressed a desire that in future no petition involving important
constitutional questions should be filed before the Supreme Court in its present composition. On
the basis of the sentiments expressed by the representatives of the Bar, the Pakistan Bar Council
in its meeting held on 13 July 2002 at Islamabad adopted the following resolution:

“The Pakistan Bar Council also resolved not to

challenge the proposed Constitutional Amendments
Package before the Supreme Court because it does
not expect fair and impartial decision as the
judiciary had ceased to be independent after taking
Oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order
which was reflected from the recent decisions of the
Supreme Court on Constitutional questions.”

Page 12 of 63
 On 26 October 2002, Annual General Meeting of the Supreme Court Bar Association
(SCBAP) was held at Lahore. The members of SCBAP were deeply disturbed over the extension
in retirement age of the judges done stealthily in the night between 9 and 10 October in order to
perpetuate a Chief Justice who was openly collaborating with the military regime. Therefore,
unanimous resolution was adopted in the meeting condemning the extension in age of retirement
of the judges in the following words:

“This general body of the SCBAP strongly

condemns enhancement of age of retirement of the
judges of the superior courts. This House is of the
considered view that interference by the military
rulers in the settled matter of retirement age of the
judges under the Constitution is a serious blow to
the independence of judiciary. The House
apprehend that enhancement of retirement age of
the judges through an unconstitutional and invalid
Legal Framework Order would be the last nail in
coffin of the independence and credibility of the
judiciary.

This House calls upon the members of the judiciary

not to accept any favours or privileges from the
military rulers by way of extension in the age of
retirement. This House, therefore, calls upon
lawyers fraternity to raise its voice and to launch
movement for independence of judiciary in general
and against enhancement of retirement age of the
judges in particular.”

On 28 October 2002 the civil Review Petition against the judgement of the Supreme
Court in the case titled “Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan Vs. Federation of Pakistan”
was fixed for hearing before the same bench that had earlier upheld the appointment of junior
judges of the Lahore High Court to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The President of the Supreme
Court Bar Association had no other option but to withdraw the Review Petition in the light of the
above mentioned resolution. He appeared before the bench constituted for the review petition
and submitted following statement at the bar:-

“That as President and Counsel of the Petitioner Association, it is stated as under:-

(i) It has been resolved by the Petitioner Association

and the Pakistan Bar Council, which are the apex
representative bodies of lawyers in Pakistan, that in
view of the oath taken by the judges under
Provisional Constitutional Order and in view of
recent verdicts upholding the various orders and
acts of the present military regime, the judiciary has
ceased to be independent and that no substantial
question of constitutional importance should be
argued before this Hon’ble court in its present
composition.

(ii) The Grand Body of the Petitioner Association in

its Annual General Meeting held on 26.10.2002 at
Lahore has unanimously condemned the
enhancement of the retirement age of the judges
through amendments in the Legal Framework
Order, which in the view of the lawyers community,
is an unconstitutional and invalid document. The
Petitioner Association has also resolved that
Page 13 of 63
 enhancement of retirement age is last nail in the
coffin of independence and credibility of judiciary.

(iii) In view of the above, it is stated with a heavy

heart that arguing the present Review Petition
involving serious constitutional questions before
this Hon’ble Court in its present composition would
be a futile exercise.”

Sd
Hamid Khan
President
Supreme Court Bar Association
of Pakistan

On going through the above statement at the bar, the Bench of the Supreme Court rose
and it was understood that the Review Petition would be disposed of accordingly. However, after
a couple of days it was widely publicized in the electronic as well as print media that an order
has been passed by the Supreme Court on the application for withdrawal of the said review
petition. When a copy of the order was obtained it was found that it contained some unwarranted
and uncalled for remarks and observations. This order was subsequently reported 37. In this order
it appears that the Chief Justice ventilated his anger, may be perhaps his guilt. Although he took
strong exception to the statement at the bar but he did not demonstrate moral courage to
reproduce the same in his order. The President of SCBAP was threatened with contempt
proceedings but couched in strange language, more befitting the litigants rather than judges,
reproduced as under:-

“We reserve our right to proceed against Mr. Hamid

Khan - contemner/signatory of the application
referred to hereinabove.”

The Chief Justice also referred to the Supreme Court Bar Association and Pakistan Bar
Council as bodies “claiming to be the apex representative bodies of the lawyers” which, apart
from being derisive and derogatory expression, also betrays his contempt towards the Bar in
general.

The order passed in this behalf was most unfortunate and the language used was
unbecoming of the apex court in the country. It contained strong language and expression
bordering on invectives and that so without hearing the President of SCBAP. It is unfortunate
that constructive criticism of the Bar expressed through its resolutions was not taken in its right
spirit and perspective. Healthy criticism was misconstrued as personal affront. The Chief Justice
showed annoyance towards representatives of the Bar who are fully justified in their
disappointment arising out of the performance and role of the judiciary particularly in difficult
times. The judiciary has generally wilted under pressure of unconstitutional regimes by
capitulating meekly in disunity and disarray. In such difficult times, the Bar had always offered
its strength and support to the judiciary but unfortunately personal ambitions of the members of
the judiciary prevailed over the collective good of the institution. The members of the judiciary
in such circumstances abandon their oath to protect and defend the constitution and instead
collaborate with the military regimes to protect rather enhance the interests of undemocratic and
unconstitutional dispensations.

In this order, an attempt was made to justify making of oath by judges under the PCO.
The following passage in the judgement is relevant:-

“….. We may further observed that it is because of the judgement in Zafar Ali
Shah’s case and oath taken by judges of the Supreme Court that a time schedule
was given and the regime had to hold elections and to go back to barracks after
restoration of democratic institutions. We may further observed that in
Page 14 of 63
 compliance with the judgement of this Court in Zafar Ali Shah’s case, elections
were held in the country on 10 th of October, 2002 and the process of transferring
the power is in progress. We may further observed that judges had taken oath
under the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 1999 and thus saved the independence of
Judiciary as well as the system of administration of justice by preserving the Bar
as well. Failing which, the Courts would have been replaced by altogether a new
system unknown to a civilized society. This aspect of the matter has been
discussed at length in the judgement of this Court in Zafar Ali Shah’s case supra
and the oath was taken in the highest national interest.”

It is a misconception on the part of the judges who authored the order that oath under
Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) had saved the judiciary. In fact disunity in the ranks of
judiciary always lead to manipulations at the hands of dictatorial regimes and undermine the
independence and credibility of judiciary. Had the members of the judiciary on 26 January 2000
stood united behind the then Chief Justice of Pakistan, the country would have been spared of the
agony it has later suffered at the hands of military regime. It is also noticeable that in the said
order, the Supreme Court deliberately avoided important point raised in the statement at the bar
which related to enhancement in the retirement age of judges. This obviously was done because
such an enhancement had no justification whatsoever and the Chief Justice in his said order
could give none. The Chief Justice had no answer to the deep concern of the lawyer community
over this unholy attempt to reward the judges for their favourable verdicts and to induce them to
continue to render similar verdicts in the future thus compromising their credibility and
independence.

Retired judges

As a result of the above unconstitutional extension in the retirement age the following
persons have already retired as judges of the superior courts:-

1. Justice (R) Sh. Riaz Ahmad of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. He attained the age of 65
on 8 March 2003 and stands retired under the Constitution.
2. Justice (R) Qazi Muhammad Farooq of Supreme Court of Pakistan. He attained the age
of 65 on 8 January 2003 and stands retired under the Constitution from that date.
3. Justice (R) Abdur Rauf Khan Lughmani of the Peshawar High Court. He attained the age
of 62 on 18 January 2003 and stands retired under the Constitution from that date.
4. Justice (R) M. Ashraf Leghari of the Sindh High Court. He attained the age of 62 on 6
March 2003 and stands retired under the Constitution from that date.
5. Justice (R) Raja Muhammad Sabir of the Lahore High Court. He attained the age of 62
on 14 April 2003 and stands retired under the Constitution from that date.

The Pakistan Bar Council and other representative bodies of lawyers have written to the
above named retiring judges requesting them to retire on the date of retirement. It was stated
respectfully in these letters that seeking retirement according to the age fixed in the Constitution
would be the only honourable thing to do for the judges. Unfortunately these retiring judges
cared more for their extension in service than any honour that would come their way. They stand
shorn of their moral authority which forms the basis of legitimacy of judicial power. The most
disappointing feature is the failure of former Chief Justice, Justice (R) Sh. Riaz Ahmad to retire
on 8 March 2003. Due to his continuation, the composition of the Supreme Court is under cloud
and the working of the Supreme Court since 8 March 2003 may come under serious challenge
leading to deep constitutional crises. The lawyers, in an unprecedented move, observed a Black
Day throughout the country on 8 March 2003, the day of retirement of former Chief Justice Riaz.
The acts of the above named retiring judges in clinging on to their offices only establish their
innate frailty that offices are dearer to them than honour.

Struggle of the Bar

Page 15 of 63
 The observance of Black day was followed by national conventions of lawyers at
Peshawar on 22 March 2003, Lahore on 19 April 2003, Karachi on 17 May 2003 and Islamabad
on 9 June 2003. The convention at Peshawar, Karachi and Islamabad were extremely successful.
They were held in the halls of the Peshawar High Court Bar Association, Lahore High Court Bar
Association and Sindh High Court Bar Association respectively. The entire proceedings of these
conventions were held in peaceful and orderly manner. The conventions at Peshawar and
Karachi were followed by peaceful processions and demonstrations.

The lawyers’ convention at Islamabad was announced to be held on 9 June 2003 in the
Library Hall of Supreme Court Bar Association. It was also announced that a protest / direct
action day would also be observed that day. The lawyers’ community, being a peaceful and law
abiding community, does not believe in any violent or indecent means in their protests. The
programme on 9 June 2003 was obviously meant to be held in peaceful and constitutional
manner. It appears that the former Chief Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmed panicked. After all he has to
have guilty conscious for continuing unconstitutionally after attaining the superannuation age of
sixty five. He asked the government security agencies to block all the access routes to the
Supreme Court building in Islamabad. There were barricades and barbed wires at least five
hundred meters away from the building of the Supreme Court on all sides of the building.
Hundreds of lawyers from Islamabad, Rawalpindi and other cities who had come to attend the
Convention were stopped at the barricades. Entire Islamabad appeared to be under some kind of
siege and the residents of Islamabad suffered inconvenience due to this unnecessary panic on the
former Chief Justice. However more than three hundred lawyers including representatives of all
the Bar Councils and major bar associations throughout the country took out a peaceful
procession on the Jinnah Avenue around 11 A.M. The procession was intercepted by the police
near the intersection leading to the parade ground on the said Avenue. The lawyers, being
peaceful, did not confront the police and held their proceedings in the square peacefully for about
an hour and half. The representatives of the lawyers addressed the gathering condemning
vehemently the LFO and extension in the retirement age of judges.

In the evening of 9 June 2003, the retired Chief Justice further deprecated himself in the
eyes of the lawyers fraternity by sealing the doors of the offices and library of the Supreme Court
Bar Association on the first floor of the Supreme Court building. It was indeed a shameful act of
unprecedented nature. Such disgraceful acts cannot deter the lawyers from their constitutional
struggle for the restoration of the Constitution unadulterated by LFO, supremacy of the
Parliament and independence of judiciary. The struggle would rather intensify further for
attaining these objects particularly against those who have usurped the offices of the President
and Chief Justice of Pakistan.

Corruption in judiciary

The judiciary in Pakistan has suffered from corruption throughout its history. However, it
reached its peak during the past three years. Corruption during these years has been
unprecedented. This problem has particularly become very critical on the assumption of office of
Chief Justice by Justice (R) Sh. Riaz Ahmad in February 2002. The corruption at the highest
level in the judiciary has become so rampant that it is no longer a secret. It is openly discussed by
the people in general who are seriously alarmed by this development. It has further undermined
the independence and credibility of the judiciary. The military regime seems to be happy with
corruption in judiciary because in its view the judges with compromised integrity would not dare
to question any of its acts. A corrupt judge, and if he happens to be Chief Justice, could be easily
manipulated by a dictatorial regime which maintains dossiers on the judges. A corrupt judge can
be shown his dossier to make him fall in line with the government. The Supreme Judicial
Council has comprehensively failed to take notice of widespread corruption in the superior
judiciary. How can the Council take any action against persons who themselves either chair or
participate in the meetings of the Supreme Judicial Council.

Duplicity in judiciary

Page 16 of 63
 Being beholden to the military, the judiciary is acting under the dictates of the military
ruler, in defiance of the Constitutional provisions and the Supreme Court’s own previous
judgement. Ironically the Chief Justice administered oath of office of President under the
Constitution to General Musharaf before the National Assembly had met and the elections to the
Senate had taken place. This was done despite the existence of his own judgement in the
Referendum case, where the Chief Justice had maintained that consequences of the referendum
would be settled by the Parliament. The Chief Justices of the High Courts administered oath to
the Provincial Governors under the Constitution. It is strange that the judges have administered
oath under the Constitution but have not themselves taken oath under the Constitution. It is
difficult to understand under what Constitutional dispensation, the judges are performing their
functions. In the case of fifteen judges of the Supreme Court, the only oath that they had taken
was under the PCO which ceased to be effective. The judges are not in a position to assert
themselves and they are being administered bitter pill of LFO which, according to the military
rulers, take care of the question of oath of judges under Article 270-C being introduced in the
Constitution through LFO.

The duplicity of judiciary can also be deciphered from the verdict given by the
Supreme Court in “Watan Party v. Chief Executive 38” in which the constitutionality of LFO was
challenged.

“The elected Parliament is in immediate sight and

obviously the Parliament and not this Court is the
appropriate forum to consider all these
amendments. We may further observe that
procedure to amend the Constitution as enshrined in
Article 239, Part XI remains unaltered. The
Parliament retains same power to amend the
Constitution as it did before the promulgation of the
Legal Framework Order.”

Thus the LFO was left to be considered by the Parliament in the said judgement which
was announced on 7 October 2002. But on 9 October 2002, the Chief Justice, author of the
judgement, accepted the extension of his tenure through an amendment in the LFO by General
Musharaf. He did not bother to wait for Parliament to be elected and consider the LFO. Clearly
the judiciary is willing to negate its own verdicts where interests or benefits of its own members
are involved.

Conclusion

The judiciary due to its role and performance for the last more than 3 years has
relegated itself to the position of subservience to the military ruler. Its role has been to support
the regime of General Musharaf without any regard to the constitutional dictates and the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in its previous cases. It has been rewarded for its role by giving
extension by three years to the judges in retirement age. In fact this extension in age is primarily
designed to protect General Musharaf in his pursuit to perpetuate himself in power. In the first
place he has, through the LFO, shielded himself in power by continuing as Chief of Army Staff.
He has ensured that the armed forces are on his side to strengthen him and his position as
President. Secondly, by continuing Justice Riaz as Chief Justice for three more years, he can
count upon a pliable Chief Justice to manage verdict favourable to him in case he dissolves the
National Assembly under his discretionary power to get rid of a hostile or recalcitrant
Parliament. Thus the judiciary has been reduced to the level of being a protector of a military
ruler who is bent upon contaminating the constitution to perpetuate himself in power.

The Judges’ case (Al Jehad Trust case) in 1996 followed by Asad Ali’s case established
the principle of seniority for appointment as Chief Justices of the Supreme Court and the High
Courts. These judgements have been completely demolished by upholding appointment of junior
judges of Lahore High Court in order to cover up the questionable and self-serving deals by
outgoing Chief Justice which have harmed the judiciary irreparably. However, the last nail in the
Page 17 of 63
coffin of the judges’ case was struck when senior judges of the Lahore High Court were ignored
in favour of a junior for appointment as Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court. Hence Justice
Riaz, for self serving reason, has also undone the principle of seniority for appointment as Chief
Justice of High Court.

The judiciary has miserably failed to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution, oath
of office that members of judiciary make at the time of induction as judges. The judiciary has
thus reduced itself to the position of being protector, preserver and defender of unconstitutional
acts and orders of the military regime.

Over the years, it has been noticed with concern that the judges of superior courts do not
observe their own code of conduct framed by the Supreme Judicial Council. Some of judges do
not observe the court timing strictly. Some of them do not decide cases months after hearing the
arguments. The Division Benches are changed frequently with the result that part heard cases
have to be argued afresh. The breakdown of judicial discipline is clearly noticeable.

The Supreme Judicial Council has failed as an institution for accountability of Judges of
superior Courts. It is not a self-operative institution. It is entirely dependant on the Government
in power which alone can send reference to the Council for proceedings against a judge for
misconduct. As long as a judge remains in good books of the government in power by rendering
judgements favourable to the government, he has nothing to worry about even if he frequently
commits misconduct. The Pakistan Bar Council has therefore recommended substitution of
Supreme Judicial Council with Judicial Commission consisting of the representatives of the
Judiciary, the Bar and the parliament with powers to deal with the matters of appointment and
accountability of judges.

The role of the judiciary in the history of the Pakistan has been extremely controversial.
Chief Justices Muhammad Munir and Anwar-ul-Haq compromised the independence and
credibility of judiciary due to their controversial judgment. There has been a continuing trend
towards deterioration and degeneration during the past fifty years. However, Chief Justices
Irshad Hassan Khan and Sheikh Riaz Ahmed have destroyed the institution of judiciary as
effective and independent organ of State. Corruption and incompetence in the judiciary have
become the order of the day. The judiciary lost its respect and credibility due to their pursuit of
offices and personal interests. They have unfortunately brought ultimate disgrace to the judiciary.

The power of the Chief Justice for form benches has been misused throughout the history
of Pakistan. It has been abused to the maximum during the past three years. It now appears that
the government needs the services of only five judges, that is the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court and four High Courts, to obtain favourable verdicts. Musharaf has ensured that he has five
Chief Justices predisposed towards him and that they would and have actually managed verdicts
favourable to him all these years. To top it all, the Chief Justice of Pakistan alone can manage all
the verdicts desired by the military rulers. Chief Justice Riaz has blatantly established how the
power to constitute benches can be abused. This power should be curtailed and formation of
benches should be regulated in such a way that a committee of judges consisting of Chief Justice
and two or three senior most judges be responsible for constitution of benches.

We have come to a stage in Pakistan where certain questions have to be settled once and
for all if the country is to be administered as a civilized state under a Constitution. These
questions include: Whether the will of the people or the whims of the military, aided by its
intelligence agencies and its surrogates in judiciary, would prevail? Whether the civilian
authority would have primacy over the military authority? Whether amendments in the
Constitution is the sole prerogative of the Parliament or amendments can also be made by
military ruler?

The answer to these question must come from the people of Pakistan, the politically
aware sections of the society and the civil society as a whole. No one should delude himself into
thinking that by learning on judiciary has abdicated its moral authority and responsibility in
providing solution to these national problems. A colossal effort has to be made to spread
awareness amongst the people to build strong and organized public opinion to preclude any
future attempts by any Bonapartist generals to experiment with the future of the nation. This is
Page 18 of 63
the responsibility of the members of the Bar, other professions and the journalists. The history
would judge the Bar harshly if it does not try to eliminate the Bonapartist Cancer from the
political system. The Bar would also not be absolved if it did not undertake an endeavor to
reform and restructure the judiciary so that it may develop into an obstructer and not facilitator of
the Bonapartist generals.

NOTES

1. Federation of Pakistan V Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan, PLD 1955 F.C. 240.

2. State V. Dosso, PLD 1958 S.C. 533.
3. Asma Jilani V. Government of the Punjab, PLD 1972 S.C. 139.
4. Begum Nusrat Bhutto V. Chief of Army Staff, PLD 1977 S.C. 657.
5. These judges were Justice Dorab Patel and Justice Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, of the
Supreme Court of Pakistan, Justice Mir Khuda Bukhsh Marri, (Chief Justice of
Baluchistan High Court at that time), and Justice M.A. Rashid of Baluchistan High Court;
Justice Zakiuddin Pal, Justice Aftab Farrukh, Justice Muhammad Habibullah and Justice
Aamer Raza A. Khan of the Lahore High Court. The refusal by Late Justice Dorab Patel
is most appreciable because had he taken the oath, he would have been the Chief Justice
of Pakistan.
6. Federation of Pakistan V. Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan, PLD 1989 S.C. 166.
7. Khawaja Ahmad Tariq Rahim V. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1992 S.C. 640.
8. Benazir Bhutto V. President of Pakistan, PLD 1998 S.C. 388 .
9. Muhammad Nawaz Sharif V. Federaton of Pakistan, PLD 1993 S.C. 673.
10. A former Prime Minister had described such consideration as chamak (shine).
11. Al-Jehad Trust V. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1996 S.C. 324.
12. Benazir Bhutto V. Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari, PLD 1998 S.C. 388.
13. It is widely rumoured that the Quetta verdict was obtained after two retired judges of the
Supreme Court namely Justice Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Justice Muhammad Afzal
Lone and the Chief Minister of the Punjab namely Shahbaz Sharif were flown into Quetta
on a special plane and Sharifuddin Pirzada, privy to the whole plan, was also present
there.
14. The delegation including President, Supreme Court Bar Association, Mr. Abid Hassan
Minto, Members of Pakistan Bar Council, Messrs Hamid Khan, Muhammad Latif Khan
Khosa, Muhammad Bilal and Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah (who was also President of the
Lahore High Court Bar Association at that Time), Vice Chairman Punjab Bar Council,
Hafiz Abdul Rehman Ansari and Members of Punjab Bar Council namely Messrs
Muhammad Kazim Khan and Muhammad Ramzan Chaudhri.
15. Justice Siddiqui appeared highly worked up. When the Bar delegation requested him not
to assemble, he said in anger’ if we do not assemble today, I am finished, finished,
finished.’ Justice Irshad by his aggressive attitude and hostile words was only
aggravating this situation. When they cooled down, it was decided that Mr. Minto and
Justice Siddiqui would meet alone in his small side room while other member of the Bar
delegation and the remaining nine judges would sit in Justice Siddiqui’s chamber
awaiting the result of their deliberations. Justice Irshad was extremely agitated and kept
walking back and forth in the chamber. It appeared that he did not want to be left out of
the deliberations, perhaps he had to report to some one. Ultimately he could not wait any
more and barged into side room to join the deliberation.
16. Justice Sajjad was due to retire in February 1998.
17. When the news reached the ten member Bench that three member Bench had suspended
the Thirteenth Amendment, Justice Siddiqui heading the Bench loudly announced that is
suspended, suspended, suspended.’
18. Under the proclamation of Emergency on 14th October 1999, it was stated that
Constitution would remain in abeyance. PLD 1999 Central Statutes 448.
19. Under the Oath of Office (Judges) order 1999 promulgated on 31 st December 1999, the
judges appointed after the Proclamation of Emergency and Provisional Constitution
Order both dated 14 October 1999 were allowed to make oath under the Constitution.
PLD 2000 Central Statutes 38.
20. Supra Note 18.

Page 19 of 63
21. See Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2000 promulgated on 25 th January 2000. All the
incumbent judges of the superior courts were required to make oath under the Provisional
Constitution Order No. 1 of 2000 and any judge who would not make oath or would not
be given oath would cease to hold the office of judge. PLD 2000 Central Statutes 86.
22. Justice (R) Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice (R) Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan, Justice (R) Mamoon
Kazi, Justice (R) Wajihudin Ahmad and Justice (R) Kamal Mansur Alam.
23. Zafar Ali Shah V. Pervez Musharaf, PLD 2000 S.C. 869.
24. General Musharaf as Chief Executive promulgated President’s Succession Order, 2001
on 20 June 2001 in which he declared the office of the President vacant (for any reason
whatsoever) thus empowering the Chief Executive to become President of Pakistan and
to perform all functions of the office of President until his successor enters upon his
office. PLD 2001 Central Statutes 392.
It was a naked exercise of brute power by the General Musharaf because neither
President Tarar had resigned his office nor its term of office had expired. He in fact had
more than one and half years of his term to serve when he was forcibly evicted from the
President House on 21 June 2001.
25. PLD 1996 S.C. 324 Supra Note 11 for title of the case.
26. ‘Supreme Court Bar Association V. Federation of Pakistan’, PLD 2002 S.C. 939.
This Judgment negated the principle of seniority as laid down in Judges’ case, ‘Al-Jehad
Trust V. Federation of Pakistan’. PLD 1996 S.C. 324 and affirmed by the Supreme Court
in the case of ‘Malik Asad Ali V. Federation of Pakistan’, PLD 1998 S.C. 161.
27. PLD 2002 S.C. 853.
28. Chief Executive Order 1 of 2002. Election Commission Order 2002. PLD 2002 Central
Statutes 190.
29. Chief Executive Order 12 of 2002. Referendum Order 2002, PLD 2002 Central Statutes
218.
30. Legal Framework Order 2002, PLD 2002 Supplement Federal Statutes 1404.
31. This judgment is given on a petition filed by Pakistan Lawyer’s Forum. The short order
of dismissal in limine was passed on 19 May 2003. The detailed reasons were released on
10 June 2003. The Bench exceeded all limits of reason, law and Constitution in justifying
as unelected President, in military uniform. Report published in Daily “DAWN” of 11
June 2003.
32. Legal Framework (Amendment) Order, 2002, PLD 2002 Supplement Federal Statutes
1698.
33. It is believed that when the LFO was presented to the Cabinet for approval, the Law
Secretary had clandestinely included the proposal for extension in retirement age of the
judges in it. Despite the fact that it was made known to the Cabinet that the General
approved of such extension, the proposal was shot down by the Cabinet and the LFO was
initially approved and promulgated without this proposal on 21 August 2002. The Chief
Justice and the Law Secretary, sensing the opposition to the proposal and identifying
those who had opposed it, cleverly waited for an opportune moment to have it within the
government circles. This opportune moment came on the eve of elections of 10 October
2002 and was accomplished in the stealth of the night.
34. It is learnt from certain members of the Parliamentary parties appointed for deliberation
on LFO that, on perusal of record, it transpired that the amendment was brought about on
13 October, 2002 but was ante dated to 9 October 2002. The obvious reason was that
General Musharaf felt alarmed due to the result of general elections on 10 October 2002
because his sponsored parties did not even obtain a majority in the Parliament. He
therefore made an ante dated amendment in the LFO on 13 October 2003 with the
intention of having the comfort of a Chief Justice totally compromised and committed to
him. This fact is also confirmed from the fact that this amendment in LFO did not appear
in the newspapers before 14th or 15th of October 2002.
35. It has been a consistent stance of the Pakistan Bar Council that there is no justification
whatsoever for extension in the retirement age of Judges which in the opinion of the
Council is a settled constitutional matter. The Council passed resolution against an
attempt to enhance retirement age of judges as far back as 12 March 1992.
36. This appointment caused serious embarrassment to Pakistan. Justice Mansoor had gone to
take seat on the Tribunal on May 18 but was found not up to the mark’ He was discreetly
told to go back after the Tribunal learnt that he lacked experience and had undergone
only a six-month long period as a High Court judge. Justice Mansoor’s appointment on
Page 20 of 63
 the Tribunal and his retention as High Court judge violate Article 207 of Constitution.
There should be high level enquiry into the matter and those responsible for playing with
the prestige of the country should be exposed and made accountable. See report in the
Daily DAWN of 27 May, 2003.
37. Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan V. Federation of Pakistan. PLD 2003 S.C.
82.
38. PLD 2003 S.C. 74.

PROCLAMATION OF EMERGENCY

No. 2-10/99-Min.1 Islamabad, the 14th October, 1999

1. In pursuance of deliberations and decisions of Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces and
Corps Commanders of Pakistan Army, I, General Pervez Musharaf, Chairman Joint
Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of Army Staff proclaim Emergency throughout
Pakistan and assume the office of the Chief Executive of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan.

2. I hereby order and proclaim as follows:-

(a) The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan shall remain in abeyance;
(b) The President of Pakistan shall continue in office;
(c) The National Assembly, the Provincial Assemblies and Senate shall stand
suspended.
(d) The Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Senate, the Speaker and Deputy
Speaker of the National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies shall stand
suspended;
(e) The Prime Minister, the Federal Ministers, Ministers, Ministers of State, Advisors
to the Prime Minister, Parliamentary Secretaries, the Provincial Governors, the
Provincial Chief Ministers, the Provincial Ministers and the Advisors to the Chief
Ministers shall cease to hold office;
(f) The whole of Pakistan will come under the control of the Armed Forces of
Pakistan.

3. This proclamation shall come into force at once and be deemed to have taken effect on
and from 12th day of October, 1999.

Sd/-
General
Pervez Musharaf
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Chief of
Army Staff and Chief Executive of Pakistan
14th October, 1999.

Page 21 of 63
 ORDER 10 OF 1999
OATH OF OFFICE (JUDGES) ORDER, 1999
[Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Part I, 31st December 1999]

No. 2-18/99-Min-I, dated 31-12-1999

Whereas in pursuance of the Proclamation of Emergency of the fourteenth day of

October, 1999, and the Provincial Constitution Order No. I of 1999, the Constitution of Islamic
republic of Pakistan has been held in abeyance.

Whereas Pakistan is to be governed, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the

Constitution;

Whereas all Courts in existence immediately before the commencement of this Order
have been continued to function and to exercise their respective powers and jurisdiction.

And whereas to enable to Judges of the Superior Courts to discharge their functions, it is
necessary that they take oath of their office:

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the aforesaid Proclamation and Provisional Constitution

Order, the Chief Executive is pleased to make and promulgate the following Order:-

1. Short title and commencement.–– (I) This Order may be called the
Oath of
Office (Judges) Order, 1999

(2) It shall come in to force at once.

2. Interpretation. .––In this Order, "superior Court" means the Supreme

Court of
Pakistan or a High Court or the Federal Shariat Court and "Judge" includes Chief Justice.

3. Oath of Judges..–– A Judge of Superior Court appointed after the commencement of this
Order shall, before entering upon office, make Oath before the authority specified in the
Constitution and in the appropriate form set out in the Third Schedule to the Constitution.

Page 22 of 63
 ORDER I OF 2000
OATH OF OFFICE (JUDGES) ORDER, 2000

No.2-2/2000-Min.I 25th January, 2000

Whereas in pursuance of the Proclamation of Emergency of the Fourteenth day

of October, 1999, and the Provincial Constitution Order No. 1 of 1999, as amended, the
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been held in abeyance;

Whereas Pakistan is to be governed, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the

Constitution and the Chief Executive has and shall be deemed always to have had, the power to
amend the constitution;

Whereas all Courts in existence immediately before the commencement of this

Order have been continued to function and to exercise their respective powers and jurisdiction;
subject to Proclamation of Emergency and Provisional Constitution Order No. I of 1999 as
amended;

And whereas to enable the Judges of the Supreme Courts to discharge their
functions, it is necessary that they take Oath of their office;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the aforesaid Proclamation and Provisional

Constitution Order as amended and in exercise of all other powers enabling him in that behalf,
the Chef Executive is pleased to make and promulgate the following order:

1. Short title and commencement.–– (1) This order may be called the Oath of
Office (Judges) Order, 2000.
(1) It shall come into force at once.

2. Interpretation.–– In this Order, "superior Court" means the Supreme Court of

Pakistan or a High Court or the Federal Shariat Court and "Judge" includes
Chief Justice.

3. Oath of Judges.–– (1) A person holding office immediately before

commencement of his Order as a Judge of superior Court shall not continue to
hold that office if he is not given, or does not make, Oath in the form set out in the
Schedule, before the expiration of such time from such commencement as the
Chief Executive may determine or within such further time as may be allowed by
the Chief Executive.

(2) A Judge of Superior Court appointed after the commencement of this order
shall, before entering upon office, make oath in the form set out in the Schedule.

(3) A person referred to in clauses (1) and (2) who has made oath as required by
these clauses shall be bound by the provisions of this Order, the Proclamation of
Emergency of the fourteenth day of October, 1999 and the Provisional
Constitution Order No. 1 of 1999 as amended and, notwithstanding any judgment
of any Court, shall not call in question of permit to be called in question the
validity of any of the provisions thereof.

(4) A Judge of Supreme Court or Federal Shariat Court shall make the oath
before the President/Chief Executive or a person nominated by him and a
Judge of High Court shall make the oath before the Governors or a person
nominated by him.

4. The Chief Executive may, for the purpose of removing any difficulties, or for bringing the
provisions of this Order into effective operation, make such provisions as he may deem to
be necessary or expedient.

5. The Oath of Office (Judges) Order No. 10 of 1999 is hereby repealed.

Page 23 of 63
 THE SCHEDULE
CHIEF JUSTICE OF PAKISTAN OR OF A HIGH COURT
OR JUDGE OF SUPREME COURT OR A HIGH COURT

(Article 3)
(In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful)

I _______________________ , do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and

allegiance to Pakistan.

That, as Chief Justice of Pakistan (or a Judge of Supreme Court of Pakistan of Chief
Justice or a Judge of the High Court or the Province of ____________), I will discharge my
duties and perform my functions honestly and to the best of my ability and faithfully in
accordance with the Proclamation of Emergency of the fourteenth day of October, 1999, the
Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 1999 as amended, this Order and the law;

That I will abide by the provisions of the Proclamation of Emergency of the fourteenth
day of October, 1999, the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 1999 as amended this
Order and Code of Conduct issued by the Supreme Judicial Council;

That I will not allow my personal interest to influence my official conduct or my official
decisions;

And that, in all circumstances, I will do right to all manner of people, according to law,
without fear or favour, affection or ill-will".

May Allah Almighty help and guide me (Ameen).

Page 24 of 63
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S ORDER 3 OF 2001
PRESIDENT'S SUCCESSION ORDER, 2001
An order to provide for succession
To the office of the President

[Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Part I, 20th June 2001]

No.2-6/2001-Min. Dated 20-06-2001.

Whereas it is expedient to provide for succession to the office of the President of the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the Proclamation of Emergency of the fourteenth day of

October, 1999, and the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 1999, and in exercise of all
powers enabling him in that behalf, the Chief Executive of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
is pleased to make and promulgate the following Order:--

1. Short title, extent and commencement. –– (1) This Order may be called the President's
Succession Order, 2001.

(2) It shall come into force at once.

2. This Order Shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution or
any other law.

3. (1) Upon the office of the President becoming vacant for any reason whatsoever, the
Chief Executive of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan shall be the President of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan and shall perform all functions assigned to the President by or
under the Constitution or by or under any law.

(2) The Chief Executive shall hold office as President until his successor enters upon his
office.

(3) Before entering upon his office, the President shall make, before the Chief Justice of
Pakistan, oath in the form set out in the Schedule.

4. (1) If the President by reason of absence from Pakistan or any other cause, is unable to
perform his functions, the Chief Justice of Pakistan or, if the Chief Justice is also absent from
Pakistan, the most senior Judge of the Supreme Court shall perform the functions of President
until the President returns to Pakistan, or as the case my be, resumes his functions.

(2) Before entering upon his office, the Actin President shall make before the most senior
Judge of the Supreme Court oath in the form setout in the Schedule.

Page 25 of 63
 THE SCHEDULE
[See Articles 3(4) and 4(2)]

I, ………………………………….. do solemnly swear that I am a Muslim and believe in

the Unity and Oneness of Allah Almighty, the Books of Allah, the Holy Qur'an being the last of
them, the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the last of the prophets and that
there can be no Prophet after him, the day of Judgement, and all the requirements and teachings
of the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah:

That I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan:

That, as President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan , I will discharge my duties, and
perform my functions, honestly to the best of my ability, faithfully, in accordance with law, the
Proclamation of Emergency of the fourteenth day of October, 1999, the Provisional Constitution
Order No. 1 of 1999, as amended, and always in the interest of the sovereignty integrity,
solidarity, well being and prosperity of Pakistan.

That I will strive to preserve the Islamic Ideology which it the basis for the creation of
Pakistan:

That I will not allow my personal interest to influence my official conduct or my official
decisions:

That, in all circumstances, I will do right to all manner of people, according to law,
without fear or favour, affection or ill-will:

And that I will not directly or indirectly communicate or reveal to any person any matter
which shall be brought under my consideration or shall become known to me as President
except as may be required for the due discharge of my duties as President.

May Allah Almighty help and guide me (A'meen)!

Page 26 of 63
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S ORDER 29 OF 2002
LEGAL FRAMEWORK (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 2002
An order to amend the Legal Framework Order, 2002

[Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Part I, 9th October, 2002]

F. No.2-(4)/2002-Pub., dated 9-10-2002–– The following Order

promulgated by the Chief Executive is hereby published for general information:--

Whereas it is expedient to amend the Legal Framework Order, 2002, (Chief Executive's
Order No. 24 of 2002) for the purpose hereinafter appearing;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the Proclamation of Emergency of the Fourteenth day of

October, 1999, read with Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 1999 and is pursuance of the
powers vested in him by and under the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, dated the
12th May , 2000 and in exercise of all powers enabling him in that behalf, the Chief Executive of
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is pleased to make the following Order:––

1. Short title and commencement.–– (1) This Order may be called the Legal Framework
(Amendment) Order, 2002.

(2) It shall come into force at once.

2. Amendment of the Schedule, Chief Executive's Order No. 24 of 2002.– In the Legal
Framework Order, 2002 [Chief Executive's Order No. 24 of 2002], in the Schedule,--

(1) in column (1), in serial number 3 relating to Article 51, in column (3), in clause

(4),--
(i) in sub-clause(d), for the semi colon at the end a colon shall be substituted and
thereafter the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:--

"Provided that for the purpose of this sub-clause the total number of general seats
won by a political party shall include the independent returned candidate or candidates
who may duly join such political party within three days of the publication in the official
Gazette of the names of the returned candidates;";

(ii) in sub-clause (e), for the proviso, the following proviso shall be substituted,
namely:-

"Provided that for the purpose of this sub-clause the total number of general seats
won by a political party shall include the independent returned candidate or candidates
who may duly join such political party within three days of the publication in the official
Gazette of the names of the returned candidates;";

(2) in column (1), in serial number 7 relating to Article 63, in column (3), in clause (1),
in sub-clause (b), in paragraph (r), for the full stop, inverted commas and semi-colon at
the end, a semi-colon and the word "or" shall be substituted and thereafter the following
paragraph shall be added and shall be deemed always to have been to added, namely:--

"(s) he is for the time being disqualified from being elected or chosen as a member of the
Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or of a Provincial Assembly under any law for the time
being in force."; and

(3) in column (1), in serial number 14 relating to Article 106, in column (3), in Clause
(3), in sub-clause (c), for the proviso, the following proviso shall be substituted namely:-
Page 27 of 63
 "Provided that for the purpose of this sub-clause the total number of general seats won
by a political party shall include the independent returned candidate or candidates who may duly
join such political party within three days of the publication in the official Gazette of the names
of the returned candidates";

(4) in column (1), after serial number 17 and the entries relating thereto in columns (2)
and (3), the following new serial numbers and the entries relating thereto shall be inserted,
namely:--

"17A 179 In clause (1), for the words "sixty-five years"

the words "sixty eight years" shall be substituted
17B 193 In clause (2), for the words "forth years" the
words "forty five years" shall be substituted
17C 195 In clause (1), for the words "sixty-two years" the
words "sixty-five years" shall be substituted

Page 28 of 63
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Original Jurisdiction)
Present
Mr. Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, C.J.
Mr. Justice Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri
Mr. Justice Sh. Ijaz Nisar
Mr. Justice Abdul Rehman Khan
Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad
Mr. Justice Muhammad Arif
Mr. Justice Munir A. Shaikh
Mr. Justice Rashid Aziz Khan
Mr. Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq
Mr. Justice Rana Bhagwandas

CONSTITUTION PETITION NOS. 62/99, 63/99, 53/99.

57/99, 3/2000, 66/99, AND 64/99.
(Constitution petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution
of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973)

1. Const. P.62/99

Syed Zafar Ali Shah …Petitioners

Verses
1. General Pervez Musharraf,
Chief Executive of Pakistan.

2. Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed

Corps Commander No. 10 Corps, Rawalpindi.

3. The Federal Government of Pakistan through

Secretary Cabinet Division, Islamabad.

…Respondents

………………..
……………………..

Page 29 of 63
 SHORT ORDER

We accordingly hold as under:-

1. On 12th October, 1999 a situation arose for which the Constitution provided no solution
and the intervention by the Armed Forces through as extra constitutional measure
became inevitable, which is hereby validated on the basis of the doctrine of State
necessity and the principle of salus populi supreme lex as embodied in Begum Nusrat
Bhutto's case. The doctrine of State necessity is recongnised not only in Islam and other
religions of the world but also accepted by the eminent international jurists including
Hugo Grotius, Chitty and De smith and some Superior Courts from foreign jurisdiction
to fill a political vacum and bridge the gap.

2. Sufficient corroborative and confirmatory material has been produced by the Federal
Government in support of the intervention by the Armed Forces through extra
constitutional measure. The material consisting of newspaper clippings, writings, etc. in
support of the impugned intervention is relevant and has been taken into consideration as
admissible material on the basis of which a person of ordinary prudence would conclude
that the matters and events narrated therein did occur. The findings recorded herein are
confined to the controversies involved in these cases alone.

3. All past and closed transactions, as well as such executive actions as were required for
the orderly running of the State and all acts, which tended to advance or promote the
good of the people, are also validated.

4. That the 1973 Constitution still remains the supreme law of the land subject to the
condition that certain parts thereof have been held in abeyance on account of State
necessity;

5. That the Superior Courts continue to function under the Constitution. The mere fact that
the Judges of the Superior Courts have taken a new oath under the Oath of Office
(Judges) Order No. 1 of 2000, does not in any manner derogate from this position, as the
Courts had been contemplated by Article 233 (1) of the Constitution, keeping in view the
language of Article 10, 23 and 25 thereof.

(v) That these acts, or any of them, may be performed or carried out by means of
orders issued by the Chief Executive or through Ordinances on his advice;

(vi) That the Superior Courts continue to have the power of judicial review to judge
the validity of any act or action of the Armed Forces, if challenged, in the light of
the principles underlying the law of state necessity as stated above. Their powers
under Article 199 of the Constitution thus remain available to their full extent,
and may be exercised as heretofore, notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in any legislative instrument enacted by the Chief Executive or by any
person or authority acting on his behalf.

(vii) That the courts are not merely to determine whether there exists any nexus
between the orders made, proceedings taken and acts done by the Chief Executive
or by any authority or person acting on his behalf, and his declared objectives as
spelt out from his speeches dated 13 th and 17th October, 1999, on the touchstone of
State necessity but such orders made, proceedings taken and acts done including
the legislative measures, shall also be subject to judicial review by the Superior
Courts.

6. That the pervious Proclamation of Emergency of 28th May, 1998 was issued under Article
232(1) of the Constitution whereas the present Emergency of 14 th October, 1999 was
proclaimed by way of an extra-Constitution step as a follow up of the Army take-over
which also stands validated notwithstanding the continuance of the previous Emergency
which still holds the field.

Page 30 of 63
7. That the validity of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 will be
examined separately in appropriate proceedings at appropriate time.

8. That the cases of learned former Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court, who had
not taken oath under the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2000 (Order 1 of 2000), and
those Judges of the Lahore High Court, High Court of Sindh and Peshawar High Court
originally established under the 1973 Constitution and have continued in their functions
inspite of the Proclamation of Emergency and PCO No. 1 of 1999 and other legislative
instruments issued by the Chief Executive from time to time;

6. (i) That General Pervez Musharraf, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of
Army Staff through Proclamation of Emergency dated the 14 th October, 1999 followed by
PCO 1 of 1999, whereby he has been described as Chief Executive, having validly
assumed power by means of an extra-Constitutional step, in the interest of the State and
for the welfare of the people, is entitled to perform all such acts and promulgate all
legislative measures as enumerated hereinafter, namely:-
a) All acts of legislative measures which are in accordance with, or could have been
made under the 1973 Constitution, including the power to amend it;
b) All acts which tend to advance or promote the good of the people;
c) All acts required to be done for the ordinary orderly running of the State; and
d) All such measures as would establish or lead to the establishment of the declared
objectives of the Chief Executive
(ii) That constitutional amendments by Chief Executive can be resorted to only if the
Constitution fails to provide a solution for attainment of his declared objectives and
further that the power to amend the Constitution by virtue of clause 6 sub-clause (i) (a)
ibid is controlled by sub-clause (b) (c) and (d) in the same clause.

(iii) That no amendment shall be made in the salient features of the Constitution i.e.
independence of Judiciary, federalism, parliamentary form of government blended with
Islamic provisions.

(iv) That Fundamental Rights provided in Part II, Chapter I of the Constitution shall continue
to hold the field but the State will be authorized to make any law or take any executive
action in deviation of Articles 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 24 as who were not given oath,
cannot be re-opened being hit by the doctrine of past and closed transaction.

9. That the Government shall accelerate the process of accountability in a coherent and
transparent manner justly, fairly, equitably and in accordance with law.

10. That the Judges of Superior Courts are also subject to accountability in accordance with
the methodology laid down in Article 209 of the Constitution.

11. General Pervez Musharraf, Chief of Army Staff and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
Committee is a holder of Constitutional post. His purported arbitrary removal in violation
of the principle of audi alteram partem was ab-initio void and of no legal effect.

12. That this order will not affect the trials conducted and convictions recorded including
proceedings for accountability pursuant to various orders made and Orders/laws
promulgated by the Chief Executive or any person exercising powers or jurisdiction
under his authority ad the pending trials/proceedings may continue subject to his order.

13. This is not a case where old legal order has been completely suppressed or destroyed, but
merely a case of constitutional deviation for a transitional period so as to enable the Chief
Executive to achieve his declared objectives.

14. That the current electoral rolls are out-dated. Fresh elections cannot be held without
updating the electoral rolls. The learned Attorney-General states that as per report of the
Chief Election Commissioner this process will take two years. Obviously, after
preparation of the electoral rolls some time is required for delimitation of constituencies
and disposal of objections, etc.
Page 31 of 63
15. That we take judicial notice of the fact that ex-Senator Mr. Sartaj Aziz moved a
Constitution Petition No. 15 of 1996, seeking a mandamus to the concerned authorities
for preparation of fresh electoral rolls as, according to Mr. Khalid Anwar, through whom,
the above petition was filed, the position to the contrary was tantamount to perpetuating
disenfranchisement of millions of people of Pakistan in violation of Articles 17 and 19 of
the Constitution. Even MQM also resorted to a similar Constitution Petition bearing No.
53 of 1996 seeking the same relief. However, for reasons best known to the petitioners in
both the petitions, the same were not pursued any further.

16. That having regard to all the relevant factors involved in the case including the one
detailed in paragraph 14 and 15 above three years period is allowed to the Chief
Executive with effect from the date of the Army take-over i.e. 12 th October, 1999 for
achieving his declared objectives.

17. That the Chief Executive shall appoint a date, not later than 90-days before the expiry of
the aforesaid period of three years, for holding of a general election to the National
Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies and the Senate of Pakistan.

18. That this Court has jurisdiction to review/re-examine the continuation of the
Proclamation of Emergency dated 12th October, 1999 at any stage if the circumstances so
warrant as held by this Court in the case of Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari v.
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1999 SC 57).

Page 32 of 63
 EXTRACT FROM JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 15, "QAZI HUSSAIN AHMED VS. PERVAIZ
MUSHARRAF, CHIEF EXECUTIVE.

Hussain Ahmed V. Pervez Musharraf Chief Executive (Sh. Riaz Ahmad, CJ)
P L D 2002 Supreme Court 853

Present: Sh. Riaz Ahmed, C.J., Munir A. Sheikh, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry,
Qazi Muhammad Farooq, Mian Muhammad Ajmal, Syed Seedar Hussain Shah,
Hamid Ali Mirza, Abdul Hameed Dogar and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ.

Qazi Hussain Ahmad, AMEER JAMAAT-E-ISLAMI

PAKISTAN and others …………….Petitioners

Versus

General PERVEZ MUSHARRAF,

Chief Executive and other………Respondents

Constitution Petition Nos. 15, 17 to 24 and Civil Petition No. 512 of 2002 decided on 27 th April
2002.

SHORT ORDER

12. As far as the legal status of the Referendum Order in concerned, suffice it to say that
it has been issued by the Chief Executive and the President of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by this Court in Syed Zafar Ali
Shah's case while validating the Proclamation of Emergency of the 14 th day of October,
1999 and the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 1999 and it has rightly been
conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said Order does not have the
effect of amending the Constitution of Pakistan.

13. As regards the ground of challenge to the consequences flowing from the holding of
referendum under the Referendum Order, apparently these questions are purely academic,
hypothetical and presumptive in nature and are not capable of being determined at this
juncture. Accordingly, we would not like to go into these questions at this stage and leave
the same to be determined at a proper forum at the appropriate time. Since no relief can
be granted in these proceedings at this stage, the Constitution petitions are disposed of
being premature.

14. In view of our findings in the above petitions, no order is required to be passed in
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 512 of 2002, which is disposed of accordingly.”

DETAILED JUDGMENT

84 It was also argued before us that the Chief Election Commissioner and the
Election Commissioner of Pakistan had no authority to conduct the referendum in view
of provisions of Articles 213(3) , 218 and 219 of the Constitution. The argument is
fallacious because it ignores the fact that the provisions of the Constitution are in
abeyance. As mentioned earlier, the Referendum Order has been issued by the Chief
Executive notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution and under the
Proclamation of Emergency and the P.C.O. No. 1 of 1999 and all other powers enabling
him in that behalf. Furthermore, the Chief Election Commissioner, in view of Article
213(3), has such powers and functions as are conferred on him by the Constitution and
law. We have already held that the Referendum Order is a validly promulgated Order of
the Chief Executive. The Referendum Order empowers the Chief Election Commissioner
and Election Commission of Pakistan to hold and conduct referendum and this is not
Page 33 of 63
open to challenge on any ground or criteria laid down in Syed Zafar Ali Shah's case. It
was repeatedly argued that the provisions for referendum in the Constitution are general
in nature while Article 41 specifically provides the mode for election to the office of the
President through an electoral-college of the National Assembly, the Provincial
Assemblies and the Senate and Article 41 being the special provision would prevail over
Article 48(6). Mr. Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada urged that Article 41 and Article 48(6) of the
Constitution, if read together and harmonized, provide plural remedies, courses and
options, it may be observed that the principles for interpreting Constitution documents as
laid down by this Court are that tall provisions should be read together and harmonious
construction should be placed on such provisions so that no provision is rendered
nugatory. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have rightly urged that
appeal to the political and popular sovereign, i.e. the people of Pakistan cannot be termed
as undemocratic and cannot be regarded s against the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
As already observed, Articles 41, 43 and 48 and the definition of 'service of Pakistan' in
Article 260 and Schedules to the Constitution are not at all relevant and have not bearing
upon the issue involved in these proceedings.

Page 34 of 63
1. RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL
IN ITS 124TH MEETING HELD ON 29-04-2000 AT ISLAMABAD

"Where the Lawyers in Pakistan have always stood for constitutional government, rule of
law and democracy;

And whereas the interruptions in the constitutional rule have caused great harm to the
polity in Pakistan.

Therefore, the Pakistan Bar Council is of the considered view:

1. That the Constitution should be restored at the earliest so that the present
constitutional void is brought to an end.

2. That a time frame be given for holding of general elections and handing over of
the government to the party/parties that are elected in such elections.

2. CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT BILL, AS PROPOSED BY THE PAKISTAN

BAR COUNCIL REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF THE "JUDICIAL
COMMISSION" FOR MARKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPERIOR
JUDICIARY.

1. The Article 209 shall be substituted as under:-

209.(1) There shall be Judicial Commission of Pakistan referred to as the

'Commission' in this part.

(2) The Commission shall consist of :-

(a) The Chief Justice of Pakistan who shall be its Chairman;

(b) the two next most senior Judges of the Supreme Court;

(c) the four Chief Justices of High Courts;

(d) the Vice-Chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council;

(e) the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association;

(f) four Presidents of the High Courts Bar Associations at the

Principal Seats of the High Courts;

(g) a member of National Assembly nominated by the Prime

Minister;

(h) a member of National Assembly nominated by the Leader

of the Opposition in the National Assembly; and

(i) four members of Senate, one from each Province elected by

the Senate for the purpose.

(3) It at any time the Commission is inquiring into the capacity or

conduct of a Judge who is a member of the Commission or a
member of the Commission is absent or is unable to act due to
illness or any other cause then the Judge of the Supreme Court
who is next in seniority below the Judges referred to in paragraph
(b) of clause (2) shall act as a member of the Commission in his
place.

(4) If upon any matter inquired into the Commission there is a

difference of opinion amongst its members the opinion of the
Page 35 of 63
 majority shall prevail and the report of the Commission to the
President shall be expressed in terms of the view of the majority.

(5) If, on information received from any source, the Chairman of the
Commission may or on the requisition of not less that one-fourth
of the total membership of the Commission, the Chairman, shall
direct the Inquiry Committee of the Commission to enquire into
the capacity and conduct of a Judge of the Supreme Court or of
High Court as to whether he:-
(a) May be incapable of properly performing the duties of his office
by reason of physical or mental incapacity, or

(b) May have been guilty of misconduct.

(6) On receipt of the report of the Inquiry Committee the Council shall
consider the matter and make appropriate recommendations to the
President.

(7) On receipt of the recommendations from the Commission to the

effect that the Judge is incapable of performing the duties of his
office or has been guilty of misconduct, the President shall remove
the Judge from the office.

(8) The Inquiry Committee shall be nominated by the Chairman of the

Commission and shall be selected from the members of
Commission as under:-
(a) Two members shall be drawn from amongst those referred
to in paragraphs (a), (b) & (c) of clause (2).

(b) Two members shall be drawn form amongst those referred

to in paragraphs (d), (e) & (f) of clause (2).

(c) One member shall be drawn from amongst those referred to

in paragraphs (g), (h) & (I) of clause (2).

(9) (a) The chairman of the Commission shall summon the

meetings of the Commission.
(b) A meeting can also be requisitioned by not less that one-
third of the total members of the Commission.

(c) The Commission shall meet at least twice in a calendar

year.

(d) The quorum of the meetings of the meetings of the

Commission and the Inquiry Committee shall not be less
than one half of the membership of the commission or
Committee.

(e) No proceedings of the Commission or any report submitted

by it shall be void because of any vacancy or vacancies in
the membership of the Commission.

(10) A Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court shall not be

removed from office except as provided by this Article.

(11) The Commission shall issue a Code of Conduct to be observed by

the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

Page 36 of 63
2. The following amendments shall be made in Article 177:

(a) After the word 'President' appearing in the first instance in clause (1) the
words "after consultation with the Commission" shall be added.

(b) After the words "the Chief Justice" appearing at the end of clause (I) the
words "and the Commission" shall be added.

3. The following amendments shall be made in Article 193:-

(a) After sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (I), sub-clause (c) shall be added as
under:-
"(c) with the Commission; and"
(b) Sub-clause (c) of clause (I) shall be re-numbered as sub-clause (d).
(c) In sub clause (b) of clause (I0 after'semi colon' the word "and" shall be
omitted.

3. (a) RESOLUTION APPROVED/PASSED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR

COUNCIL IN ITS 125TH MEETING HELD ON 08-07-2000

After very lengthy deliberations, the Law Reforms Committee in its meeting held on 14-
02-2000 proposed the following Resolution for consideration and adoption by the Pakistan Bar
Council.
RESOLUTION NO. 1

"Be it resolved by the Law Reforms Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council that the
following resolution dated 15-05-2000 passed at a joint meeting of the Baluchistan High Court
Bar Association, Baluchistan Bar Council and Baluchistan Bar Association be adopted:-

"It was resolved by majority that they (Association/Council) in coordination and

association of their sister concerns in other provinces including Pakistan Bar Council and
Supreme Court Bar Association should file Review Petition before the Apex Court on the
ground that authority to amend the constitution and make laws in violation of
Fundamental Rights cannot be given to one person more particularly when it affects
public-at-large who were neither before the Court nor beneficiary of last regime."

RESOLUTION NO. 2

"Be it resolved by the Law Reforms Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council that the
Council may file a review petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and for that purpose the
following points be also considered to be taken in the review petition:-

(i) Whether the position of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court by their decision to take
fresh oath under the Oath of (Judges) Order, 1999 in violation of the oath earlier taken by
them under Article 178 of the 1973 Constitution swearing to "preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan", at a time when 6 of the
Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice of Pakistan , true to
their conscience, Islamic injunctions and commitment of their oath under the
Constitution, refused to take oath under the P.C.O., 1999 and resigned, did not stand
undermined to give an acceptable decision about an extra-constitutional action of army
takeover?

(ii) Whether the conferment of power on the Chief Executive to amend the Constitution is
legally justified and whether mere statement in the short order the Constitution in the
supreme law of the country as tenable when the Constitution is held in abeyance by the
P.C.O. and in any case the former has been made subservient to later. (PLD 1999 SC
57).

(iii) Whether the observation made in para 283 of the Judgment that "the Judges of the
Superior Judiciary enjoy constitutional guarantee against arbitrary removal" and "they
Page 37 of 63
 can only be removed by filing as appropriate reference before the Supreme Judicial
Council and not otherwise" is not against the hard facts when several Judges of the High
Courts were sent home under the P.C.O. before the announcement of the judgement of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court without affording them an opportunity of hearing. Practically
and legally the Constitution has been made ineffective and consequentially there is no
protection available to the Superior Judiciary under the same.

(iv) How a finding could be given as regards the refusal of the aforesaid 6 learned Judges of
the Supreme Court to take oath under the P.C.O. when the point was not in issue before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and whether it was given to justify the act of their own oath
taking under the P.C.O.?

(v) The condemnation of the Parliamentarians and chosen representatives by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, without hearing them, which is a negation of the principles of natural
justice, more so when the Court itself has observed that at the time of his dismissal
General Pervez Musharraf was condemned unheard, is sustainable on the touch-stone of
the principles of natural justice?

(vi) Whether after the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the future of democratic
process in the country has not become absolutely bleak and there shall no hope of its
resurrection and restoration in its complete form, as recognized by the democratic
countries?

(vii) What is the practical value of, and how the nation stands benefitted by, a finding of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that it has the power of judicial review, when the extra-
Constitutional in abeyance by the P.C.O., have been given legality and validity and
whether such a finding is convincing?

(viii) Whether the judgement gives proper interpretation of the provisions of Article 2A of the
Constitution, where will of the nation is inflected, that the people shall be governed by
their chosen representatives?

(ix) Whether the decision/judgement has not gone far ahead, of the scope of the petitions and
pleadings and arguments of the parties before the Court?

(x) Whether the findings given about fundamental rights would not go against the decisions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself, reported as PLD 1999 SC 57?

3. (b) DECISION OF THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL TAKEN

IN ITS 125TH MEETING HELD ON 08-07-2000 AT ISLAMABAD.

The Council after having considered and approved the Resolution proposed by the Law
Reforms Committee vide its meeting held on 04-06-2000, decided to file a Review Petition in
respect of the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Constitution Petition No. 62/99 titled
"Syed Zafar Ali Shah Versus General Pervez Musharraf etc" and other cases. The Council also
constituted following five Members Special Committee for drafting and filing the Review
Petition in the Supreme Court:

1. Mr. Kadir Bakhsh Bhutto Chairman.

2. Mr. Abdul Haleem Pirzada Member
3. Mr. Hamid Khan Member
4. Sh. Asghar Hameed Member
5. Mr. Muhammad Bilal Member

Page 38 of 63
4. RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL
IN ITS 126TH MEETING HELD ON 11-08-2000 AT ISLAMABAD.

“The Pakistan Bar Council, in its meeting held on 11-08-2000, do hereby resolves
as under:-

1. That there is no justification for the recent amendment in the political

Parties Act which the Council feels is beyond the mandate of the Military
Government. The Military Government can not make any change in the
basic structure of the Political Parties in the Country. This amending
Ordinance should be withdrawn forthwith.

2. That the amendment is contradictory to Fundamental rights guaranteed

under Article 17 of the Constitution, hence void in terms of Article 8 of
the Constitution.

3. That the ban on political activities in the Country, should immediately be

lifted”.

5. DECISION OF THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL TAKEN

IN ITS 127TH MEETING HELD ON 09-09-2000 AT ISLAMABAD

Representation of the Pakistan Bar Council in Review Petition filed by the Council
in the Supreme Court in Constitution Petition No. 62/99

Mr. Hamid Khan pointed out that the Pakistan Bar Council while deciding to file a
Review Petition in the Supreme Court in Constitution Petition No. 62/99 titled "Syed Zafar Ali
Shah Versus General Pervez Musharraf etc" nominated Mr. K. B. Bhutto, to represent it in the
Supreme Court as its Vice-Chairman. He suggested that in view of the election of Mr. Abdul
Rahim Kazi as Vice-Chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council, in place of Mr. K. B. Bhutto, it
would be appropriate if the Council was represented in the Supreme Court by its new Vice-
Chairman. The suggestion was accepted and it was decided that Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi, the new
Vice-Chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council, would represent in the Supreme Court in the
Review Petition No. 209/2000.

Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa suggested that in view of importance of the matter,
it would be appropriate if a panel of Members was constituted to assist the learned Vice-
Chairman in preparation and arguing the matter before the Supreme Court. The proposal of
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa was approved by the Council and it was decided that a
Committee consisting of the following Members would assist the learned Vice-Chairman:

1. Mr. Hamid Khan

2. Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa
3. Mr. Abdul Haleem Pirzada
4. Qazi Muhammad Anwar

The Vice-Chairman would head the above Committee.

6. RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL IN

ITS 127TH MEETING HELD ON 09-09-2000 AT ISLAMABAD

Consultation with the Pakistan Bar Council:

On the proposal of Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, seconded by Mr. Abdul
Haleem Pirzada and Mr. Hamid Khan, the Council resolved that no change/amendment in the
present Judicial System should be made. However, it the Government contemplates to consider
any move in that direction, at some stage, it should consult the Pakistan Bar Council and
Provincial bar Councils before hand.
Page 39 of 63
7. RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL IN ITS 128 TH
MEETING HELD ON 14-10-2000 AT ISLAMABAD

Restoration of Constitution & holding of General Elections.

The following Resolution, jointly proposed by Mr. Hamid Khan and Sardar Muhammad
Latif Khan Khossa, was unanimously approved the Council.

RESOLUTION

The Pakistan Bar Council, in its meeting held on 14 th October, 2000, views with
grave concern, the developments in the Country during the past year and in particular the
following:-

1. Pakistan is without Constitution for the past one year which is causing
great anxiety and disillusionment amongst the people of Pakistan and is
leading towards isolation in the comity of Nations.

2. That the military regime has failed to achieve its avowed objects in so far
as:-

- the process of accountability is slow, selective and unfair and

particularly it is directed against selected politicians and the
accountability against members of the most corrupt establishment
in the country is ignored.

- the economy is suffering from deep recession and there is general

feeling of uncertainty amongst major economic players in the
country.

- there is exodus of talented persons from Pakistan who are

emigrating with their savings and resources thus causing a serious
brain drain and flight of capital from the country.

- a large number of draconian laws have been introduced and have

been executed with harshness causing injury to civil rights and
liberties of large number of citizens of Pakistan.

3. That there is discernable estrangement amongst the smaller Provinces

where the feeling is strong that they are not getting their due in the
federation particularly in the areas of employment and investment.

4. That independence of judiciary has suffered a major set back during the
past year particularly when the judges were forced to take oath different
from and repugnant to the oath under the Constitution and the same was
made a vehicle for sacking and forcing out independent judges. This
caused irreparable loss to nation as a whole. Furthermore the military
regime should cease to interfere with the Judicial process.

That general elections to the National and Provincial Assemblies should be held at
the earliest under the supervision of an independent and powerful Election Commission
and immediately thereafter the power be handed over to the elected representatives of the
people under the Constitution.

The devolution plan should be left the Constitutionally elected representatives of

the people for formulation and implementation and the general elections to the National
and Provincial Assemblies should not be delayed under the excuse of holding local
bodies elections first”.

Page 40 of 63
8. RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL
IN ITS 129TH MEETING HELD ON 20-01-2001 AT LAHORE.
RESTORATION OF CONSTITUTION & DEMOCRACY

RESOLUTION

Whereas the military regime take over on 12th October, 1999 brought the
constitutional rule in the Country at an end and the Constitution is held in abeyance since
14th October, 1999.

And whereas the continued situation of constitutional void has landed the country
into deep crises particularly in the areas of economy, law and order, Provincial harmony
and other important national issued.

And whereas the military regime has miserably failed to attain any of its avowed
objects that were spelled out in the speeches of Chief Executive on 13 and 17 October,
1999.

And whereas the actions of the military government in releasing and exiling
Nawaz Sharif under pressure from a foreign government have undermined the verdicts
and proceedings of the courts in the country and negated the sovereignty of Pakistan as a
State.

And whereas the military government has lost its legitimacy and credibility due to
its poor performance in general and exile of Nawaz Sharif in particular.

And whereas the military regime can no longer pursue the process of
accountability with any credibility after Nawaz Sharif’s exile.

And whereas the country cannot continue indefinitely in a state of uncertainty and
constitutional void and the continuance of present state of affairs is a constant threat to
the federation.

And whereas the polity in Pakistan is based on democracy, tolerance and social
Justice and it cannot countenance any form of dictatorship or fascism.

And whereas the judgement of Supreme Court dated 12 th May, 2000 has lost its
efficiency in the face of the circumstances enumerated above.

And whereas the Lawyers in Pakistan have always been vanguard of democracy,
constitutional rule and independence of Judiciary.

Now, therefore, the Pakistan Bar Council in its meeting held on 20 th January,
2001, unanimously resolves as under:-

1. The Constitution should immediately be restored and Provisional

Constitution Order (PCO) be revoked and the Armed Force should
withdraw from the National political scene forthwith allowing
constitutional processes in the country to take their course.

2. An interim government representing various political shades of opinion in

the country be immediately formed I order to hold elections to the
National and Provincial Assemblies under the Constitution within ninety
days.

3. A powerful and independent election Commission be constituted in order

to ensure free, fair and impartial general elections throughout the Country.

Page 41 of 63
 4. The exile of Nawaz Sharif is condemned as an unconstitutional act and a
negation of sovereignty and independence of Judiciary in Pakistan.

5. The interference of the U.S. and Saudi Governments in the internal affairs
of Pakistan is strongly condemned and military regime is censured for
acting under foreign dictates in exiling Nawaz Sharif country to the
verdicts of the Courts and proceedings pending before them.

6. It is a self evident truth that Pakistan was conceived as a democratic state

and it is a bounden duty of the fraternity of the Lawyers to ensure
democratic polity in Country and to resist and effort to impose dictatorial
or fascist rule in any manner or sense whatsoever.

7. The Council vehemently opposes any proposal on the part of military

regime to have a constitutional rule for the Armed Forces in Pakistan.

8. The Lawyers Community in Pakistan is called upon to undertake an

activist role and vanguard of the constitution and democracy and to foil
any attempt by any force within and outside Pakistan to lead the country
into anarchy and chaos.

9. There is an emergent need for action take Pakistan out of deep crises faced
by it at present due to runaway inflation, deteriorating law ad order
situation drug and arms trafficking, refugee problem and lack of
participation of the Provinces in the National affairs. These situations
should be remedied immediately by taking emergency measures in which
the Lawyers Community should play and active role.

10. The Council views with concern the extremely high oil and utility prices
which have been raised a number of times within a year particularly when
price of oil is going down internationally during the same period.

11. The Council shall initiate the process of awareness to actively pursue the
objective of restoration of constitutional rule, holding of general elections,
transfer of powers to the elected representative of people and restoration
of self respect amongst the comity of Nations.

The Council unanimously resolves that in order to achieve the objectives of

restoration of democracy , restoration of Constitution, independence of Judiciary and rule
of Law, a representative Conference of Lawyers fraternity shall be held at Lahore in
Lahore High Court Bar Association premises on 10 th February, 2001 under auspices of
the Pakistan Bar Council in which besides Members of the Pakistan Bar Council, office
bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Members of all the four Provincial Bar
Councils of Country, Presidents, Vice-President and Secretaries of all High Court Bar
Associations and Presidents of all District Bar Associations of the Country will be invited
when a detailed programme will be chalked out to achieve the aforesaid objectives."

Page 42 of 63
9. RESOLUTION UNANIMOUSLY PASSED IN THE NATIONAL
LAWYERS CONFERENCE HELD ON 10-02-2001 AT LAHORE UNDER
AUSPICES OF THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL

Whereas the military take over on 12 th October, 1999 brought the constitutional rule in
the Country to an end and that the Constitution is being held in abeyance since 14 th October,
1999.

And whereas continued situation of constitutional void has landed the country into deep
crises particularly in the areas of economy, law and order, Provincial harmony and other
important national issues.

And whereas the military regime has miserably failed to attain any of its avowed objects
that were spelled out in the speeches of the Chief Executive on 13 and 17 October, 1999.

And whereas the actions of the military government in releasing and exiling Nawaz
Sharif under pressure from foreign governments have undermined the verdicts and proceedings
of the courts in the country and negated the sovereignty of Pakistan as a State.

And whereas the military government has lost its legitimacy and credibility due to its
poor performance in general.

And whereas the military regime can no longer pursue the process of accountability with
any credibility after Nawaz Sharif's exile.

And whereas the country cannot continue indefinitely in a State of uncertainty and
constitutional void and the continuance of present state of affairs is constant threat to the
federation of Pakistan.

And whereas the polity in Pakistan is based on democracy, tolerance and social Justice
and it cannot countenance any form of dictatorship or fascism.

And whereas the judgement of Supreme Court dated 12th May, 2000 has lost its efficacy
in the facts and circumstances enumerated above.

And whereas the summary dismissal of the Review Petition filed by the Pakistan Bar
Council has caused great disappointment amongst the lawyers throughout the country.

And whereas there is conclusive evidence of blatant interference by the government in

the working and decision making of the judiciary thus undermining its independence.

And whereas the Lawyers in Pakistan have always been vanguard of democracy,
constitutional rule and independence of Judiciary.

Now. Therefore, National Lawyers Representative Conference being held on 10 th

February, 2001 at Lahore under the auspices of the Pakistan Bar Council resolves as under:-

1. The Constitution should immediately be restored and Provincial Constitution

Order (PCO) be revoked and the Armed Force should withdraw from the national
political scene forthwith allowing constitutional process in the country to take its
due course.

2. An interim government representing various political shades of opinion and

Technocrats of repute/professionals in the country be immediately formed in
order to hold elections to the National and Provincial Assemblies under the
Constitution within ninety days.

Page 43 of 63
3. A powerful and independent Election Commission consisting of persons of
unimpeachable integrity be constituted in order to ensure free, fair and impartial
general elections throughout the country.

4. All restrictions on political activity be immediately withdrawn and conditions be

made conducive for the political parties to prepare themselves for the ensuing
general elections.

5. The exile of Nawaz Sharif is condemned as an unconstitutional act and a negation

of sovereignty of Pakistan and independence of Judiciary.
6. The interference of the Foreign Governments in the internal affairs of Pakistan is
strongly condemned and military regime is censured for acting under foreign
dictates in exiling Nawaz Sharif contrary to the verdicts of the Courts and
proceedings pending before them.

7. It is a self evident truth that Pakistan was conceived as a democratic state and it is
a bounden duty of the fraternity of the Lawyers to ensure democratic polity in
Country and to resist any effort to impose dictatorial or fascist rule in any manner
or sense whatsoever. The Lawyers Community in Pakistan is called upon to
undertaken an activist role as vanguard of the constitution and democracy and to
fiol any attempt by any force within and outside Pakistan to lead the country into
anarchy and chaos.

8. The Conference vehemently opposes any proposal on the part of military regime
to have a constitutional role for the Armed Forces in Pakistan.

9. There is an emergent need for action to take Pakistan out of deep crises faced by it
at present due to runaway inflation, deteriorating law and order situation, drug and
arms trafficking, refugee problem and lack of participation of the Provinces in the
National affairs. These situations should be immediately remedied by taking
emergency measures in which the Lawyers Community should play an active
role.

10. The Conference views with concern extremely high Oil and Utility prices which
have been raised a number of times within a year particularly when the price of
Oil is going down internationally during the same period.

11. The Conference condemns interference of the government and its intelligence
agencies in the independent working of the Judiciary. The Conference strongly
feels that such interference has seriously undermined the independence and
eroded the credibility of the institution of Judiciary causing incalculable harm to
the polity in Pakistan.
12. The Conference condemns unconstitutional oath administered to the members of
the superior courts under the PCO on 26 January 2000 and it is vehemently
demanded that the Judges who were forced out of judiciary due to such oath be
allowed to perform their functions freely under the Constitution.

13. The Lawyers fraternity throughout the country shall initiate the process of
awareness to actively pursue the objective of restoration of constitutional rule,
independence of judiciary, holding of general elections, transfer of powers to the
elected representatives of people and restoration of self respect of the Pakistan
amongst the comity of Nations.

14. That Conventions and Conferences with co-operation and collaboration with the
Provincial Bar Councils and the High Court Bar Associations concerned be held
at all the Provisional Headquarters.

15. The Lawyers Community be called upon to observe strike on Tuesday , the 27
February, 2001 by abstaining to appear before any Court/Tribunal and to hold
meetings in their respective bars to emphasize the Resolution of this Conference.
Page 44 of 63
 16. The Supreme Judicial Council should hold open and transparent inquiry against
the Judges named in the tapes scandal and the Pakistan Bar Council should take
appropriate action, after due inquiry, against Mr. Khalid Anwar for his alleged
involvement in the tapes scandal.

17. The Conference calls upon the Judges named in the tapes scandal that they should
immediately stop holding Courts till their names are cleared by the Supreme
Judicial Council.

18. The recommendations of the Hamood-ur-Rehman Commission Report be

immediately implemented and those held responsible be tried and punished.

19. A National Co-ordination Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. Abdul

Haleem Pirzada, who is Chairman, Co-ordination Committee of the Pakistan Bar
Council and President of the Supreme Court bar Association , be constituted. The
Vice-Chairman of all the four Provincial Bar Councils and Presidents of High
Court Bar Associations at Principal seats, will be Members of the Committee. The
Chairman is authorized to co-opt. Any other Member on the Committee. The
Committee will co-ordinate with concerned representatives and bar Bodies for
holding Conventions/ Conferences at different provincial headquarter in terms of
para 14 of the Resolution.

10. RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL

IN ITS 131ST MEETING HELD ON 05-05-2001 AT LAHORE.

“Whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has delivered a Judgement in

cases of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto & Mr. Asif Ali Zardari where in a categorical verdict
has been given in respect of biased attitude o Mr. Justice Rashid Aziz , the then Chief
Justice of Lahore High Court and Mr. Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum, a Judge of the
said Court, in relation to the said case which is against the Code of conduct of Judges of
the Superior Courts.

Therefore, the Pakistan Bar Council resolves to send a complaint under Article
209 of the Constitution for appropriate action as the Council is of the view that the
references made in the Judgment to certain incidents constituting bias, are sufficient
proof of the misconduct against those Judges.

It further resolves that pending initiation of action or adjudication on such a

complaint, the entrustment of judicial work to the Judges concerned may be stopped
forthwith as the same is deterimental to the very administration of justice and valuable
rights of consumers of justice”.

11. RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL

IN ITS 133RD MEETING HELD ON 08-12-2001 AT ISLAMABAD.

(i) Re-employment of retired Judges of the Superior Courts.

(ii) Statement of the Chief Executive to continue as President after election to the
Parliament.

The following two Resolutions, on the above subjects, on being proposed by Mr. Hamid
Khan, learned Member, were considered and unanimously passed by the Council:

Page 45 of 63
 RESOLUTION N o. 1

“The Council resolves that Judges of the Superior Courts should not be employed
against any judicial, quasi judicial or administrative positions after their retirement. The
Council is of the opinion that post retirement employment of Judges is violative of
independence of judiciary and leads to influence and interference of the Executive in the
affairs of judiciary”.

RESOLUTION N o. 2

“The Council views with deep concern the statement of the Chief Executive,
General Pervez Musharraf, that he would continue as President after election to the
Parliament and the Provincial Assemblies. The Council is of the view that there should be
no interference with the Constitutional process and the election to the office of the
President should be held immediately after the elections to the National and Provincial
Assemblies and the Senate strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution
of 1973”.

12. RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL

IN ITS 133RD MEETING HELD ON 08-12-2001 AT ISLAMABAD.

Letter dated 03-12-2001 of the Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed to

the learned Vice-Chairman, Pakistan Bar Council in respect of Suo Motu Case No.
5 of 2001 regarding directives for regulating the trials and Appeals under the Anti
Terrorism Law pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Sh. Liaquat Hussain's
case.

The letter dated 03-12-2001 of the Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed to the
learned Vice-Chairman, Pakistan Bar Council, requesting him to appear before the Supreme
Court on 3-1-2002 in Suo Motu Case No. 5 of 2001 pertaining to directives for regulating the
trials and Appeals under the Anti-Terrorism Law pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Sh.
Liaquat Hussain's case, was considered. The Council after discussion and due consideration of
the letter, as cited above, passed the following resolution:-

RESOLUTION

“The Council was of the view that the exercise of Suo Motu jurisdiction by the
Chief Justice of Pakistan, particularly at the time when he is retiring from the office of
Chief Justice is not appropriate. The invitation to the Members of the legal fraternity on
the pretext of assistance is an eye wash. It was also expressed that not only the Pakistan
Bar Council but other representative bodies should not participate in such proceedings,
which apparently are not in accordance with the dictates of Constitution, Justice and fair
play. It was, therefore, unanimously resolved that:-

i) no representative of the Pakistan Bar Council will appear before the Supreme
Court in Suo Motu Case No. 5 of 2001 pursuant to notice dated 03-12-2001 of the
Chief Justice of Pakistan (Mr. Justice Irshad Hasan Khan).

ii) All the Provincial Bar Councils, Supreme Court Bar Association, High Court Bar
Associations and District Bar Associations be communicated the aforesaid views
and decision of the Pakistan Bar Council for information. It would be appropriate
if Members of the legal fraternity follow the footsteps of the Pakistan Bar
Council”.

Page 46 of 63
13. RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL
IN ITS 134TH MEETING HELD ON 27-01-2002 AT LAHORE.

“The Pakistan Bar Council strongly condemns the elevation of Junior Judges of
the Lahore High Court to the Supreme Court of Pakistan which is in clear violation of
principles of Law settled by the Supreme Court in the ‘Al-Jihad Trust’ and ‘Malik Asad
Ali’ cases. The Pakistan Bar Council proposes to prefer Petition under Article 184(3) of
the Constitution before the Supreme Court calling in question such appointments. The
Pakistan Bar Council also authorizes its Vice-Chairman, Mr. H. Shakil Ahmed to
implement this Resolution as early as possible and to co-opt. other Members of the
Pakistan Bar Council for prosecution of the said Petition”.

A Special Committee consisting of following Members of the Council was also

constituted for implementation of the above Resolution:-

1. Mr. H. Shakil Ahmed Chairman

Vice-Chairman, Pakistan Bar Council.
2. Mr. Rasheed A. Razvi Member
from Karachi.
3. Qazi Muhammad Anwar Member
from Peshawar
4. Hafiz Abdul Rehman Ansari Member
from Lahore.

14. RESOLUTIONS UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED IN THE ALL PAKISTAN

LAWYERS REPRESENTATIVES MEETING HELD ON 9 TH MARCH, 2002 AT
KARACHI HALL LAHORE HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION, LAHORE
UNDER AUSPICES OF THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL.

R E S O L U T I O N No. 1

WHEREAS the lawyer fraternity throughout Pakistan is of the considered opinion that
military courts or courts with participation of members of the armed forces are unconstitutional;

AND WHEREAS promulgation of Anti-terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 is

inherently unconstitutional for the reason that it provides for participation of members of the
armed forces as adjudicators on the Anti-terrorism courts thereby restricting access to justice.

AND WHEREAS representatives of lawyers throughout Pakistan have assembled in

Lahore on 9th of March 2002 on the invitation of the Pakistan Bar Council to consider a
resolution against Anti-terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002.

All Pakistan Lawyers Representatives Conference held under the auspices of the Pakistan
Bar Council does hereby resolve as under:-

1. That the promulgation of Anti-terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 is

strongly condemned.

2. That such Ordinance is clearly unconstitutional for the reason that the
Constitution does not envisage members of the armed forces to act as adjudicators
of trial of civilians.

3. That the said Ordinance is also unconstitutional in view of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case titled ‘Sh. Liaquat Hussain Vs. Federation of Pakistan’
(PLD 1999 SC 504).

Page 47 of 63
 4. That this Conference calls upon the Pakistan Bar Council, Supreme Court Bar
Association, Provincial Bar Councils and High Court Bar Associations to
challenge constitutionality of the said Ordinance before the Supreme Court of
Pakistan.

15. R E S O L U T I O N No. 2

All Pakistan Lawyers representatives Conference held under the auspices of the Pakistan
Bar Council on 9th March 2002 views with grave concern the intended constitutional amendment
package by the present military regime and does hereby resolve as under:-

1. That lawyers fraternity is of the considered view that the present military regime
has no authority to amend the constitution which can only be amended in
accordance with the process provided under Article 239 of the Constitution.

2. That the lawyers fraternity has rejected the verdict of the Supreme Court in Zafar
Ali’s case conferring the power on the Chief Executive to amend the constitution
and this conference does hereby reiterate the same.

3. That the creation of new Provinces by dividing and partitioning the existing
Provinces is a matter of constitutional amendment which the military regiem has
no authority to make.

4. That this conference express in strongest terms even the raising of issue of
creation of new Provinces on the part of the military regime and the very
discussion of the same is against the national interest and national unity.

16. R E S O L U T I O N No. 3

All Pakistan Lawyers Representatives Conference held under the auspices of the Pakistan
Bar Council views with grave concern the floating of the idea of holding referendum for
extending term of office as President to General Pervez Musharraf and resolve as under:-

1. That the referendum for conferring term of office as President of Pakistan is

inherently unconstitutional and referendum cannot take place of election to the
office of the President.

2. That the referendum previously held for conferring term to the office as President
on the heads of the military governments have been rejected by the people and
such referendums held in 1960 and 1984 have been condemned by the people of
Pakistan as sham and fraud.

3. That any effort on the part of General Pervez Musharraf to continue as President
on the basis of referendum would not only be a negation of the constitution but
would also have no credibility amongst the eye of the people of Pakistan.

17. R E S O L U T I O N No. 4

All Pakistan Lawyers Representatives Conference held under the auspices of the Pakistan
Bar Council rejects the appointment of Justice (Retd) Irshad Hasan Khan as Chief Election
Commissioner of Pakistan and resolve as under:-

1. That the appointment of Justice (Retd) Irshad Hasan Khan is unfair and result of a
deal between him and the military regime to manipulate the results of the
forthcoming general elections to the Parliament and the Provincial Assemblies.
Page 48 of 63
 2. That conference holds that Justice (Retd) Irshad Hasan Khan is a controversial
person and his continuation in office as Chief Election Commissioner will
jeopardize the credibility of the forthcoming general elections to the Parliament
and the Provincial Assemblies.

3. That the conference proposes that Justice (Retd) Irshad Hasan Khan be removed
from the office of Chief Election Commissioner forthwith and a person of
unimpeachable integrity and credibility be appointed in his place. This
Conference proposes the names of Justice (Retd) Fakharuddin G. Ebrahim, Justice
(Retd) Ajmal Mian and Justice (Retd) Zafar Hussain Mirza so that appointment of
any one of them is made as Chief Election Commissioner.

18. R E S O L U T I O N No. 5

All Pakistan Lawyers Representatives Conference held under the auspices of the Pakistan
Bar Council disapproves the elevation of junior judges of the Lahore High Court to the Supreme
Court of Pakistan and fully supports the petitions filed by the Pakistan Bar Council and the
Supreme Court Bar Association challenging these appointments as unconstitutional.

19. R E S O L U T I O N No. 6

All Pakistan Lawyers Representatives Conference held under the auspices of the Pakistan
Bar Council condemns the recent appointment of five judges to the Lahore High Court being
violative of the quota of lawyers in the appointment of High Court judges and also being
violative of the seniority principle amongst the sessions judges.

20. R E S O L U T I O N No. 7

All Pakistan Lawyers Representatives Conference held under the auspices of the Pakistan
Bar Council is of the considered view that the judges of the Superior Courts should neither be
offered nor should they accept any employment after their retirement being violative of the
independence of judiciary.

21. R E S O L U T I O N

Passed in the “National Lawyers Representatives Conference” held on

20-04-2002 at Lahore under auspices of the Pakistan Bar Council.

WHEREAS the military rulers in Pakistan have abused in the past the process
referendum to perpetuate themselves in power;

AND WHEREAS the people of Pakistan have rejected such referendum as hoax and
sham;

AND WHEREAS the lawyers fraternity in Pakistan is unanimous that election of

President through referendum or continuation in office as President are inherently and blatantly
unconstitutional;

AND WHEREAS the lawyers in Pakistan as guardians of constitution and upholders of

rule of law have rejected the Referendum Order 2002 and to consider the referendum
purportedly being held thereunder as fraud on the Constitution;

AND WHEREAS the people of Pakistan in general and the lawyers in particular are
shocked over the misuse of government funds and state resources for perpetuating a military
ruler in power and claim accountability of those funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, the participants of the National Lawyers Representatives
Conference held at Lahore on Saturday, 20th April, 2002 under auspices of the Pakistan Bar
Council do hereby resolve as under:-
Page 49 of 63
(1) That the Referendum Order, 2002 and the referendum being held thereunder on
30th April, 2002 to perpetuate General Parvez Musharraf in power are gross
violation and contravention of the Constitution.

(2) That the Referendum can not be a substitute for Presidential election and
regardless of the result of the so called referendum on 30 th April, 2002, no
legitimacy will be conferred on General Parvez Musharraf to continue in power.

(3) That General Parvez Musharraf and his military junta shall be responsible and
accountable for every penny of public money being misspent on the contrived and
bogus public meetings being held at various centers in Pakistan.

(4) That General Parvez Musharraf being in the service of Pakistan is neither
qualified to contest the election for President of Pakistan nor can confer upon
himself the office of President through any means whatsoever including the
subterfuge of referendum.

(5) That General Parvez Musharraf is violating his Oath of Office under the
Constitution as a member of the Armed Forces by participating in political
activities for which he is liable to be punished under the law.

(6) That General Parvez Musharraf and his colleagues in the military junta have done
great disservice to the country and have contravened the national interest by
politicization of the Armed Forces and by undermining the morale and
effectiveness of Armed Forces as an efficient fighting force.

(7) That speech of General Parvez Musharraf on 8 th April, 2002 and the referendum
being held thereafter clearly indicate that his ambition to perpetuate himself in
power would undo parliamentary democracy in Pakistan and could pave way to
disaffection amongst people of Pakistan by breach of Constitutional consensus on
the parliamentary democracy.

(8) That continuation of military rule in Pakistan is extremely harmful to the unity
and solidarity of the country and general elections to the Parliament and the
Provincial Assemblies should be held forthwith in order to transfer power to the
representatives of the people of Pakistan.

(9) The Conference calls upon the people of Pakistan to boycott unconstitutional
referendum on 30th April, 2002.

(10) The Conference pays rich tributes to Justice (Retd.) Tariq Mahmood of
Baluchistan High Court for resigning his office on the principle that Election
Commission has not constitutional jurisdiction to hold referendum. His
resignation has further eroded the legitimacy and credibility of the process of
referendum.

(11) The Conference condemns those lawyers who have joined the military
government despite collective opinion of the lawyer community that the present
military government and referendum called by it are unconstitutional.

(12) The Conference, calls upon all the Bar Councils and Bar Associations in the
country to observe PROTEST DAY on THURSDAY the 25 th April, 2002, and
hold protest meetings and rallies and take out processions throughout the country
to condemn referendum being held on 30th April, 2002.

(13) The Conference condemns in the strongest terms the violence against members of
the press in Faisalabad which clearly manifests the dictatorial tendencies of the
present military regime.

Page 50 of 63
22. RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL IN
ITS 138TH MEETING HELD ON 13-07-2002 AT ISLAMABAD.

After lengthy deliberations, as aforementioned, it was resolved that the Pakistan Bar
Council was of the considered view that only the elected Parliament had the prerogative to make
any amendment in the Constitution. The Council, therefore, unanimously rejected and
condemned the proposed Constitutional Amendment Package. It also endorsed and adopted the
Resolution (enclosed) passed in the Lawyers Representatives Conference held at Lahore on 06-
07-2002.

The Council further resolved that with a view to mobilize public opinion views of the
Political Parties on the Package might be elicited through the Questionnaire, as set out
hereunder:

(1) Whether, in the opinion of your Party,

the Constitution should only be amended
by a duly elected Parliament?
Yes No

(2) Whether, in the opinion of your Party,

the Constitution can be amended by
any individual/Military Ruler?
Yes No

(3) If the answer to Question No. 2 is in …………………

the affirmative, which of the amendments …………………
in the proposed Constitutional Amendments …………………
Package is acceptable to your Party? …………………

The Heads of different Political Parties would be requested to send views of their
respective Parties on the Package by way of answering the above Questionnaire by 24-07-2002
and the Pakistan Bar Council would meet again on 27-07-2002 for further consideration of the
matter.

23. DECISION TAKEN BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL IN

ITS 138TH MEETING HELD ON 13-07-2002 AT ISLAMABAD.

Strike Call:

The Council endorsing the decision of the Lawyers Representatives Conference held at
Lahore on 06-07-2002 called upon the Lawyers fraternity throughout Pakistan to observe strike
on 15-07-2002 against the Constitutional Amendments Package issued by the Government. The
Lawyers will hold protest meetings in their respective Bar premises to condemn the Package. It
was also decided that the High Court and District Bar Associations throughout the Country may
be informed accordingly through Telegrams.

Not to Move the Supreme Court:

The Pakistan Bar Council also resolved not to challenge the proposed Constitutional
Amendments Package before the Supreme Court because it does not expect fair and impartial
decision as the Judiciary had ceased to be independent after taking Oath under the Provisional
Constitutional Order which was reflected from the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on
Constitutional questions.

Page 51 of 63
24. DECISION TAKEN BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL IN
ITS 139TH MEETING HELD ON 27-07-2002 AT ISLAMABAD.

6 i) Consideration of the matter of proposed Constitution Amendment Packages in the

light of replies of Political Parties to the Questionnaire earlier sent to them. (Item
No. 2 of the Agenda).

ii) Consideration of the Political Patties Order, 2002.

(Item No. 3 of Agenda).

The matter was deliberated upon at length whereafter it was decided, by majority, that the
Pakistan Bar Council will hold a Joint Meeting of Representatives of Lawyers and Political
Parties on 17-08-2002 at 10-00 a.m. in Karachi Hall of the High Court Bar Association, Lahore
to arrive at a consensus on the proposed Constitutional Amendments Packages. The Heads of
Political Parties to whom the Questionnaire was sent, will be invited to the Joint Meeting. Two
representatives of each Political Party, one of whom will be the spokesman, will be invited. In
addition to Members of the Pakistan Bar Council, the Vice-Chairmen and Chairmen, Executive
Committees of Provincial Bar Councils, Presidents and Secretaries of the Supreme Court Bar
Association, all High Court Bar Associations and District Bar Associations of Lahore, Karachi,
Peshawar and Quetta will also be requested to attend the Joint meeting.

It was also decided that the Pakistan Bar Council

1. rejects both the proposed Constitutional Amendments Packages and resolves that
Gen. Parvez Musharraf has no authority to amend the Constitution.

2. will hold a joint meeting of the representatives of the political parties and the
lawyers on Saturday the 17th August 2002 at Lahore to arrive at a consensus on
the proposed Constitutional Amendments Packages.

3. condemns the legislations regarding elections and political parties which is

designed to rig the general elections and to achieve results desired by the
military regimes.

4. demands that the present Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) has lost all
credibility after the holding of rigged referendum. With him in office, no fair,
free, impartial or transparent election can be held. He should therefore be
removed forthwith and a man of credibility like Fakharuddin G. Ibrahim, Ajmal
Mian or Zafar Hussain Mirza be appointed.

5. condemns the efforts of military regime to induce the Superior Courts to give
favourable verdicts by surreptitiously offering extention in the retirement of the
Judges. The PBC is of the considered view that the Lawyers will not accept or
countinance any interference or change in the age of retirement of the Judges of
the Superior Courts.

6. condemns all efforts of the military regime to rig the election and demands that all
the transfers and postings of officers responsible for Administration made after
May 1, 2002 be cancelled forthwith.

Page 52 of 63
25. THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE BAR AND POLITICAL PARTIES IN
THEIR JOINT MEETING HELD ON SATURDAY, 17TH OF AUGUST, 2002 IN
LAHORE UNDER THE AUSPICES OF PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL IN THE
KARACHI HALL OF THE LAHORE HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION
HAVE AGREED UPON THE FOLLOWING:-

JOINT DECLARATION

Whereas constitutional amendment packages circulated by the present military

government are negation of the constitutional principle that the amendment to the constitution is
the sole and exclusive function of the parliament.

And whereas the proposed constitutional amendments or any of them, if enforced by the
military ruler, would deface the constitution which was approved unanimously by all the political
forces in the country.

And whereas the so called referendum held on 30th April, 2002 was farce and did not lend
any legitimacy on Gen. Pervez Musharaf to serve as a President.

And whereas it is imperative for the national interest to hold fair, free, impartial and
transparent general elections in order to transfer the state power to the elected representatives of
the people of Pakistan.

And whereas the present military government should not be partisan the election process
and should avoid interference in the electoral process through bureaucracy and intelligence
agencies.

And whereas an independent Election Commission is absolutely necessary for holding of

fair, free, impartial and transparent elections.

And whereas political activities should be allowed immediately and party candidates
should be free to conduct their election campaign.

Therefore, we the participants of the joint meeting do hereby agree on the following
declaration:

1. We categorically reject the proposed constitutional amendment packages and hereby

reiterate that amendment in the constitution is the sole and exclusive function of the
parliament and no military ruler or any individual can amend, alter or in any way
interfere with the constitution.

2. The political parties participating in this joint meeting do hereby commit and confirm
that if any constitutional amendment is imposed by Gen. Pervez Musharaf on the
people of Pakistan and if their members are elected to the parliament, they will undo
such amendments and will restore the sanctity of the constitution and will not validate
all that has been done unconstitutionally.

3. We hereby reject the so called referendum held on 30 th April, 2002 and declare that
no legitimacy has been conferred on Gen. Pervez Musharraf to serve as President or
his performance.

4. The political parties, participating in the joint meeting, do hereby commit and confirm
that after the elections to the parliament and the provincial assemblies they would
hold the elections of the President in accordance with the provisions of the
constitution.

Page 53 of 63
 5. We condemn the pre-poll rigging being done through frequent changes in the election
laws and constitutional amendments through Orders and Ordinances and by
interference in the election process through frequent transfers and postings of
government officials and by use of intelligence agencies.

6. We demand immediate withdrawal of all recent changes in election laws and those
Orders and Ordinances which have virtually amended the constitution.

7. The present Chief Election Commissioner has lost credibility by holding of rigged
and farcical referendum and he should resign or be removed forthwith and that an
independent Election Commission be constituted immediately.

8. The present military government should desist from interfering in the election process
and its governors and ministers should not be allowed to participate in the
forthcoming general elections.

9. The ban on political activities should be lifted immediately and all political parties
and political workers should be allowed to participate in the election campaign.

10. No political leaders, workers or party candidates should be detained under the
detention laws or by involving them in false criminal cases during the election
process in order to ensure free and fair election.

11. International election observers should not only be allowed but be facilitated in
observing election campaign and holding of elections on the polling day and
representatives of Pakistan and Provincial Bar Councils, Supreme Court and High
Court Bar Associations and other Bar Associations be authorized to monitor the poll
to ensure free, fair and transparent election.

26. RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL

IN ITS 140TH MEETING HELD ON 28-09-2002 AT ISLAMABAD.

“This house resolves in its 140th meeting held in the office of Pakistan Bar Council as
follows:-

That the Legal Framework Order, 2002 is an instrument promulgated by General Pervez
Musharraf purportedly enforced as the Chief Executive and Chief of Army Staff. The Pakistan
Bar Council is of the considered opinion that General Pervez Musharraf neither had the legal nor
the moral authority to enforce such an order which over ride the Constitution of the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan which was unanimously passed by the Parliament in the year 1973. The
Legal Framework Order tentamounts to rewriting the Constitution and for all practical purposes
the Country would be regulated by the 2002 Order and not the 1973 Constitution. We strongly
oppose and unanimously reject the Legal Framework Order, 2002. We beseach all Political
Parties to undo the illegal and undemocratic Legal Framework Order, which has mutilated the
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in the Parliament which would emerge in
consequence of the forthcoming General Election.”

27. RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL

IN ITS 140TH MEETING HELD ON 28-09-2002 AT ISLAMABAD.

“The Pakistan Bar Council in its meeting held on 28 th September, 2002, at Islamabad
strongly condemns the present military regime for use of government machinery and resources in
support of the political parties and candidates of its choice. It is an open secret that the
government officials including Governors and Chief Secretaries are convassing support for the
candidates of PML(Q) and National Alliance and are distributing funds and other favours to help
such candidates and to defeat candidates of other political parties. This situation has seriously
impaired the credibility, fairness, impartiality and transparency of the general elections.

Page 54 of 63
 RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL
IN ITS 140TH MEETING HELD ON 28-09-2002 AT ISLAMABAD.

Appointment of Judges in violation of Al-Jehad Trust Case.

“Whereas this Bar Council is of the considered view that the elevation to the
Superior Courts should be strictly on the basis of merits alone and that the appointment of
Chief Justice of Provincial High Courts and elevation to the Supreme Court should be on
the basis of seniority;

And whereas the consistant stand of this Bar Council was approved by the
Supreme Court in the Al-Jehad case (Judges case) and to some extent in the recent
Petition of Pakistan Bar Council and Supreme Court Bar Association.

Therefore, this Council takes serious notice of the violation of the verdict of Al-
Jehad Trust case (Judges case) by appointing a junior Judge as Chief Justice of the
Lahore High Court and by appointing the senior puisne Judge as adhoc Judge in the
Supreme Court of Pakistan. These appointments are the last nail in the coffin of the
“Judges case” and another blow to the independence of judiciary.

We strongly disapprove the role of Judicial Consultees in submitting to wishes of

the Executive in breach of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court.”

29. RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL

IN ITS 141ST MEETING HELD ON 04-01-2003 AT KARACHI.

“The pre & post Election scenario in Pakistan reflects General Pervez
Musharraf’s outrageous attempt to usher in Rule of his Kings Party in the Country.
The innumerable Orders/Ordinances promulgated by the Military Dictator in his attempt
to keep Leaders of the two major political Parties out of the Electoral Process is a total
mutilation of Democracy being blatant negation of the Peoples Rights to elect
parliamentarians of their choice. The state machinery deployed for manipulating the
Election and withholding result for 3 days after the poll is clear manifestation of the
highest order rigging. Despite every effort the Kings Party could not muster even bare
majority for which the State Machinery was again utilized to force desertion and win over
M.N.As and M.P.As for which purposes Article 63 A disqualifying deserters was held in
abeyance. Thus despite all the force, fraud and trickery through a razor thin majority the
Kings Party managed the Election of its P.M. All key portfolios in the Cabinet were
given to Deserters as reward for betraying their Party. Thereafter in Balochistan
convicted persons were released to procure a coalition Government and in Sindh, the
constitutional office of Governor was sacrificed and given to a person who was
absconder and fugitive from Law and Justice for over a Decade and many Ministries
daled out to deny the largest party of the Province the right to form Government. The
actual power brokers went on the rampage and after letting loose reign of harassment
enabled the PM to procure the Vote oif Confidence. Even the Parliamentarians were
tricked in the National Assembly as well as four Provincial Assemblies, when they were
categorically told that they were taking Oath under the 1973 Constitution but now the
Government claims and the Speaker National Assembly asserts, that L.F.O. and other
amendments through Presidential Orders had become part of the 1973 Constitution. The
transitionery Constitutional deviation did not authorize General Pervaiz Musharaf to
mutilate the Constitution of 1973. The instruments so made during the vacuum had to be
put before the National Assembly which alone is competent to accept or reject the lows
constituted during the interregnum. All Political Parties had undertaken to reject the
arbitrary amendments in the Constitution being introduced by the General in the APC
arranged by the Pakistan Bar Council and we proudly and thankfully acknowledge their
principled stand taken in tune with their commitments, before and after taking Oath as
MNAs and MPAs. Election to the Senate have also been prolonged and deferred for
ulterior motivations with MPAs being forced to switch over loyalties. Upon completion

Page 55 of 63
 of the Upper House Elections to fill the office of the President of Pakistan will have to be
held under the 1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The Pakistan Bar Council, therefore, resolve as follows:

a- That the pre & post election rigging as aforestated is abhorrent to conscience and
condemned by the legal fraternity of Pakistan;

b- That the Desertion Clause as per original Article 63 A of the Constitution 1973 be
given full affect and those Members who have become turncoats be deseated to
obliterate Politics of Horse Trading.

c- That General Pervez Musharraf forthwith relinquish the Army Post and restrain
D.G. Rangers, I.S.I., NAB & other State Agencies from haunting the
MNAs/MPAs to win them over to support the Kings Party.

d- That the Senate Elections be held as scheduled on the 4 th February, 2003 and
giving affect to the Desertion Clause in Article 63 A of the Constitution no
MNA/MPA be forced to vote against his party decision.

e- That the Elections to the office of the President must follow the completion of
Electoral College as per Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

f- That the Parliament must ensure the independence of Judiciary and appoint a
High Powered Parliamentary Commission to go through and assess the
Judgments delivered on legal and Constitutional issues during the period of
General Pervez Musharraf and place the report for remedial action as deemed
expedient for upholding the Rule of Law and Constitution.

g- That the Constitution of 1973 be enforced in letter a spirit shorn of all

interceptions as from Oct 1999 onwards and any amendment sought may be
oiluted piloted a Bill and processed in accordance with the provisions contained
therein”.

30. RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL

IN ITS 141ST MEETING HELD ON 04-01-2003 AT KARACHI.

The following Resolution regarding enhancement of retirement age of Judges of superior

Courts was also unanimously passed by the Council:-

“The Pakistan Bar Council, in its meeting held on 4 th January, 2003 at Karachi,
has condemned, in the strongest terms, the enhancement in the age of retirement of the
judges of the superior Courts under an amendment to the Legal Framework Order (LFO)
on 9th October, 2002. This has further undermined independence and credibility of the
judiciary. In the opinion of the Council, it is an ill-gotten gain received from an
illegitimate regime under an invalid and unconstitutional document in the stealth of the
night. Such an amendment, apart from being unnecessary and violations of the settled
question of retirement age under the Constitution, has incapacitated the judiciary from
examining and adjudicating upon the legality and constitutionality of the LFO or any
provision thereof, being the beneficiaries under the same.

The Council reiterates its previous stand that LFO is not part of the Constitution
and its provisions cannot change or alter any constitutional and its provisions cannot
change or alter any constitutional provision including the matter of retirement age of
judges fixed under the Constitution. The Council therefore calls upon the judges not to
accept this dubious gift from the military rulers and renounce the same and retire
honorably on attaining the age of superannuation fixed under the Constitution,
unadulterated by the LFO. Those Supreme Court and High Court judges who continue to
act as judge after attaining the age of 65 years and 62 years respectively, would be

Page 56 of 63
 regarded as usurpers by the members of the Bar and a movement would be launched for
the removal of such usurper judges.

The Vice-Chairman has been authorized to write letters urging the judges
attaining the age of superannuation to retire honourably”.

31. RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL

IN ITS 82ND MEETING HELD ON 12-03-1992 AT RAWALPINDI

Constitutional Amendment Bill:

The Council expressed its concern over the contemplated “Private Member's Bill"
seeking amendment of the Constitution and passed the following Resolution:

"The Pakistan Bar Council in its Meeting held on 12 th March, 1992 notes will
grave concern the private Member's Bill seeking amendment of the Constitution to
enhance the age of retirement of the Members of the Superior Judiciary and is of the
considered view that the same is inappropriate and uncalled for.

This Council considers this a regretable attempt to interfere with the

independence of Judiciary as guaranteed by the Constitution and there is no justification
to depart from the settled constitutional provisions regarding retirement age."

32. RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL

IN ITS 142ND MEETING HELD ON 08-03-2003 AT ISLAMABAD.

“The Pakistan Bar Council in its meeting held on 08-03-2003 strongly condemns Justice
Riaz Ahmad and Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq for not laying down their robes despite having
reached the age of retirement under the Constitution. Henceforth, in the opinion of the Council,
they have ceased to be judges and have lost legal and moral authority and justification to
continue as judges. This unfortunate step on their part has led Pakistan to another serious
constitutional crises because the Supreme Court has ceased to be constitutionally constituted
because the Court is without a valid and Constitutional Chief Justice.

The Council has decided and calls upon all the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to
socially boycott these retired judges and all other judges who attain the age of retirement. The
Council calls upon all the Bar Councils and Bar Associations not to invite such retired judges in
their functions and not to allow them to create any dissention or disunity amongst members of
the legal fraternity.”

33. JOINT COMMUNIQUE

OF THE MEETING OF MEMBERS OF ACTION COMMITTEE

REPRESENTING THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL AND OTHER NATIONAL
AND PROVINCIAL BAR BODIES WITH HEADS OF POLITICAL PARTIES
AND THEIR PARLIAMENTARY LEADERS HELD AT ISLAMABAD ON
28-02-2003.

We resolve to continue our struggle both jointly and from our respective platforms for the
supremacy of Parliament and we have a complete identity of views that the Legal Framework
Order is not and cannot be made a part of the 1973 Constitution except by approval of the two
thirds majority provided by Article 239 of the Constitution.

We recognize the imperative of co-ordinating our struggle and towards that end resolve
to consult with each other on a regular and structured basis.

Page 57 of 63
 We jointly condemn the distribution by establishment of the printed Constitution of the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan wherein the provisions of the LFO have been incorporated as if
they were already a substantive part of the Constitution.

We jointly urge the Chief Justice of Pakistan to lay down his robes on the day he attains
the age of 65 years to prevent deepening of the existing Constitutional crises and confusion.

34. JOINT COMMUNIQUE

OF THE MEETING OF MEMBERS OF ACTION COMMITTEE

REPRESENTING THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL AND OTHER NATIONAL
AND PROVINCIAL BAR BODIES WITH PARLIAMENTARY LEADERS OF
POLITICAL PARTIES HELD AT ISLAMABAD ON 03-05-2003.

“Members of the Action Committee comprising Bar Leaders held a Joint meeting with the
Parliamentary leaders of Political Parties on 3 rd May, 2003 in the Supreme Court Bar premises,
Islamabad and resolve as follow:-

1. We affirm, uphold and re-iterate the joint declaration dated 17-08-2002 and Joint
Communiqué dated 28-02-03 between the bar and the leaders of the Political Parties and
further endorse and approve the Resolutions adopted in the first and second All Pakistan
Lawyers Conventions held on 22-03-03 at Peshawar and on 19-04-03 at Lahore.

2. The Bar appreciated and fully backed the struggle of the Parliamentarians inside the
National Assembly and the Senate against the Legal Framework Order, while the leaders
of the Political Parties salute the struggle of the legal fraternity which forced the
Government to hold parleys to resolve the issue of Legal Framework Order.

3. The Legal Framework Order promulgated by Gen. Parvez Musharraf being bereft of any
legal or moral authority, did not become part of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic
of Pakistan and hence we reject the same as of no legal consequence.

4. The unanimously adopted Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 carries
an inbuilt mechanism of introducing amendments therein under Article 238 and 239 and
any person or authority trying to amend it contrary to such provisions would be
subverting the Constitution and thus committing high treason.

5. The Legal Framework Order should forthwith be placed before the Parliament as a
proposed Constitutional Bill because it is the Parliament alone which can bring about
amendments with 2/3rd majority of both Houses. However there can be no compromise on
principles particularly pertaining to the supremacy of Parliament, the federal
parliamentary system of government, the election of the President in terms of Article
41(3) and the second schedule of the Constitution, the independence of judiciary and the
trichotomy of powers in the unadulterated Constitution of 1973.

6. The independence of Judiciary is all important for the social, moral and even the
economic strength of the society. The judges of superior courts should be immediately
administered oath under the Constitution of 1973 and those who have passed the age of
superannuation should quit their offices forthwith. We also salute those Judges who
refused to take Oath under the P.C.O. and had the other Judges emulated their example
they would have upheld the majesty of people and would have established allegiance to
the Constitution rather that an individual.

7. We condemn the blatant intrusion of foreign intelligence and investigating agencies like
FBI/CIA in Pakistan by raiding houses and ruthlessly violating the privacy of Pakistani
Nationals and by picking them up and dumping them in foreign territories without any
Page 58 of 63
 recourse to law. The Government have compromised the territorial sovereignty of
Pakistan which cannot be countenanced by the self respecting people of Pakistan.

8. We have noticed with grave concern the human rights abuses particularly when people,
without recourse to law, are being apprehended, detained and not released despite release
orders by courts.

9. We also condemn the political persecution and victimization of the highest order which
continues unabated. Selective prosecution be ended forthwith, NAB be abolished and
unified Judicial system be introduced scrapping all special Courts/Tribunals so that
uniform rule of law reigns the Country.

10. We condemn Gen. Pervaiz Musharraf’s remarks about the Parliament calling it
uncivilized. This reflects his inbuilt hatred for civilian rule and constitutes an admission
on his part that he is not an elected President because he ought to know that President is a
part of the Parliament. The Parliamentarians are therefore right in saying that they would
not allow a stranger/outsider to address the joint session of the Parliament.

11. While we firmly believe that democracy should be set on rails without any delay so that
stability through continuity of institutionalised civil society rehabilitates healthy activity
in all walks of life. We hope and expect that the Opposition and Treasury Benches would
rise above their narrow political interests and restore the rule of law and supremacy of the
Constitution of 1973 unadulterated by LFO.

Page 59 of 63
 No. 246/PBC/SEC/2003
February 24 , 2003

Mr. Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad,

Chief Justice of Pakistan,
Supreme Court Building,
Islamabad.

Mr. Chief Justice,

Representatives and leaders of the Bar across the length and breadth of the country have
denounced the attempt to enhance the retirement age of judges of the Superior Courts on the
brute force of the Legal Framework Order. Any judge who continues to hold the Constitutional
office of a judge of the Superior Courts beyond the age mandated by the 1973 Constitution shall,
in the eyes of the legal fraternity, be at best, a judge defacto and not dejure.

Under the 1973 Constitution you shall be retiring as Chief Justice on 8 th March, 2003. It is our
hope that a Constitutional crises can be averted by your laying down the robes of Chief Justice
on the said date.

Sd/- Sd/-
Mian Abbas Ahmad Muhammad Kazim Khan
Vice-Chairman Chairman, Executive Committee
Pakistan Bar Council Pakistan Bar Council

Sd/- Sd/-
Hamid Khan Qazi Muhammad Anwar
President Member
Supreme Court Bar Association Pakistan Bar Council

Sd/- Sd/-
Arif Chaudhry Muhammad Yasin Azad
Vice-Chairman Vice-Chairman
Punjab Bar Council Sindh Bar Council

Sd/- Sd/-
Muneer A. Malik Amanullah Kanrani
President President
High Court Bar Association High Court Bar Association
Karachi Quetta

Sd/- Sd/-
Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry Hafiz Abdur Rehman Ansari
President President
High Court Bar Association High Court Bar Association
Rawalpindi Lahore

Page 60 of 63
 No. 54 /PBC/SEC/2003
January 06 , 2003

Hon’ble Mr. Justice

Qazi Muhammad Farooq,
Supreme Court of Pakistan,
Supreme Court Building,
Islamabad.

Respected Qazi Sahib,

With utmost respect it is submitted that the Pakistan Bar Council in its meeting held on 4 th
January, 2003 has denounced enhancement of retirement age of judges under amendment to
Legal Framework Order (LFO). (copy of the resolution is enclosed). In the opinion of the
Council, LFO is an invalid and unconstitutional document. Since you have already attained the
age of superannuation of 65 years, I have been asked by the Pakistan Bar Council to request you
to retire honourably and not to act as judge after attaining the age of retirement.
Sir, no one knows better than your goodself that no individual, even if he is a military ruler, can
amend the Constitution, which is the sole prerogative of the Parliament. Thus the LFO, unless
ratified by the Parliament by 2/3 rd majority of each of Houses of the Parliament, can not be
deemed to be part of the Constitution. Thus the provisions of LFO are not operative and the
Supreme Court judges cannot continue to serve as such after they attain the age of 65.

Sir, the lawyers community respects you for your learning, dignity, courtesy and integrity and it
is expected of you that you would not succumb to the temptation of continuing in office under a
document regarded by the lawyers as invalid and unconstitutional. In any case, LFO is an
extremely controversial document and judges should avoid involvement in any controversy that
would undermine their legal and moral authority. The lawyers fraternity will appreciate If you
set a good example by honourably retiring in accordance with the settled constitutional
provisions regarding the retirement age.

We are looking forward to a positive response from you.

Regards,

Yours sincerely

Sd/-
(Mian Abbas Ahmad)
Vice - Chairman
Copy to the Hon’ble Chief Justices and Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts for
information.

(Mian Abbas Ahmad)

Vice - Chairman

Page 61 of 63
 March 5, 2003.

The Hon'ble
Mr. Justice M. Ashraf Leghari,
Judge Sindh High Court,
Karachi.

Dear Sir,

The members of the legal fraternity across the length and breath of the country have rejected the
Legal Framework Order overwhelmingly and do not recognize it as a substantive part of the
1973 Constitution.

But for the said Order, your lordship would attaint the age of retirement of 6 th March 1973. It is
our sincere hope that you shall preserve your distinguished career and lay down the robes of your
office on 6th March 2003, thereby upholding the supremacy of the 1973 Constitution and taken
an honoured place amongst the members of the legal fraternity to which you will again belong on
your retirement.

Respectfully

Sd/- Sd/-
Rasheed A. Razvi Abu'l Inam
(Member Pakistan Bar Council) (Member Pakistan Bar Council)

Sd:-
Abdul Haleem Pirzada
(Member Pakistan Bar Council)

Sd:- Sd:-
M. Yaseen Azad Muneer A. Malik
(Vice-Chairman Sindh Bar Council) President
Sindh High Court Bar Association

Page 62 of 63
 SPECIAL COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL
IN ITS 140TH MEETING HELD ON 28-09-2002 FOR PREPARATION OF WHITE
PAPER ON THE ROLE OF JUDICIARY

1. Mr. Muhammad Yousuf Leghari Chairman

2. Mr. H. Shakil Ahmad Member

3. Mr. Hamid Khan Member

4. Hafiz Abdul Rehman Ansari Member

5. Mr. Muhammad Kazim Khan Member

6. Mr. Rasheed A. Razvi Member

7. Mr. Abdul Haleem Pirzada Member

8. Mr. Farooq H. Naik Member

9. Mian Abbas Ahmad Member

10. Qazi Muhammad Anwar Member

Page 63 of 63