ISLAMABAD: Speaker National Assembly Ayaz Sadiq filed a complaint, on Saturday, in the Supreme Judicial Council against Supreme Court’s senior most judge Justice Asif Saeed Khosa.
The reference has been filed under Article 209 of the constitution against Justice Khosa for delivering April 20 verdict in which he questioned Ayaz’s ruling in favour of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif.
“…unfortunately Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa in his judgment has attributed ‘ the failure on the part of the Honourable Speaker to inquire into or investigate the matter or to refer the matter to the Election Commission of Pakistan’,” read the complaint submitted by the NA speaker.
“Such biased and unwarranted findings of the learned Judge against the Honourable Speaker also damaged the Office of the Speaker, respected worldwide…” adds the complaint.
Sadiq’s reference further says that if he continues to be part of the top court, it will be ‘injurious’ to the judicial institution and added that Khosa’s elevation to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) will encourage him even more to make such unwarranted statements.
It also maintained that it was only Khosa who made these accusations against the speaker of national assembly whereas the other judges did not utter a word against him.
There are three ways Sharifs’ legal team will challenge JIT report
“..continuation in office of the learned Judge giving him further opportunity to write such biased, ill-founded and disputed judgements would be highly injurious to the noble image of the sublime institution of the judiciary in Pakistan. His elevation as CJP would further encourage him to flout the norms of decency, justice and propriety with impunity and in contempt of the supreme laws of the land,” it reads.
On April 20, Justice Khosa, who was leading the five-judge bench on the Panamagate, declared while giving out the decision of Panama Paper leaks that Nawaz “was not honest with the Supreme Court and nation”.
Khosa, while authoring the 192-page judgment, disqualified the prime minister, but his view belonged to the minority opinion and, therefore, had no binding effect on anyone until the verdict given in July later on.
The judge observed that the prime minister had deliberately suppressed relevant facts or had conveniently allowed himself to go along with a false story advanced by his children.