#article63a #barristeralizafar #supremecourthearing #supremecourt #kashifabbasi #muhammadmalick
Supreme Court strikes down Article 63-A verdict | Barrister Ali Zafar's Blunt Statement
Supreme Court strikes down Article 63-A verdict | Barrister Ali Zafar's Blunt Statement
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00There was no surprise.
00:02First tell me, when you boycotted, why didn't you go?
00:06Why did you stand there?
00:08There is a lot of criticism that you have diluted things.
00:12There is no dilution.
00:14We have been answering for a long time.
00:17The court is asking questions.
00:19And we are answering that you do not have any kind of authority
00:25that you go ahead and decide about the review.
00:29Your formulation is not correct.
00:31The author judge you have is not sitting.
00:35The time of the review has passed.
00:38There is no scope for a review in this case, etc.
00:42We had given all the positions.
00:44Yesterday when I spoke to Mr. Khan, he said that after giving your full opinion,
00:49you can boycott it.
00:53Boycott is not the right word.
00:55That is, you withdraw further from the proceeding.
00:59When I tried to convey the message of Mr. Khan,
01:04the judge was not ready to take Mr. Imran Khan's name.
01:09He was not ready to listen.
01:11Some criticism started from there.
01:13Anyway, it happens.
01:14There was no such strange thing in it.
01:16The issue was such.
01:18So when I said that all these judicial reviews are taking place
01:22and this is the reality, this is the perception,
01:26that the hastiness in this case
01:28basically happened so that this INA amendment is done.
01:35As you mentioned, the court also talked about some notice,
01:41talked about caution, but I presented my position.
01:45And after that, when it happened, the court said that we want to ask you a question.
01:51In what capacity?
01:53There is only one capacity. You are an officer of the court.
01:56And if the judge wants to ask you a question and wants you to answer it,
02:01then it is your responsibility as a lawyer, as a professional lawyer.
02:06But tell me one thing.
02:08When you said at the beginning that Mr. Khan wants to address the court,
02:13you knew that the court would not allow it.
02:15So did you announce it knowingly so that it would be torn?
02:20That gives you a further excuse because we all know that it was not going to happen.
02:24And they also said that you are making a very unreasonable request.
02:28I think it was a very reasonable request.
02:31Mr. Imran Khan's name has been taken and that name was his.
02:35Because he is a respondent by name,
02:38so it is his entitlement, it is his right if he wants to address the court.
02:42And when I spoke yesterday, it was the same decision that we will request for the first time.
02:46And it has been done before.
02:48You remember in the case of Nayyab that he addressed the court.
02:51He wanted to say something to the court.
02:56But the court did not give him a chance.
02:58So after that, when I gave the answer to the court,
03:03then I said to the court again that since I do not want to join the proceedings,
03:07then allow me to go out of the room.
03:09Then they let me go out of the room.
03:12This is also our norm.
03:14We do not go out of the court.
03:17And after that, I came out and the proceedings were going on inside the press conference.
03:21And I told the press conference that we have boycotted it.
03:25We are not taking part in the proceedings.
03:27Whatever they want to decide inside, they can do it.
03:30Now tell me as a lawyer, is there any legal impediment?
03:34Numbers game is a separate thing.
03:36Is there any legal obstacle left for the government to make these constitutional amendments?
03:42Because earlier, the vote count was not to be done.
03:45Now it is an open field for the government.
03:48You have to complete the numbers.
03:51First of all, the legal hitch is very clear.
03:55And that is that the bench that has decided,
03:59I had filed a petition in the morning,
04:01in which I have challenged its formation.
04:05So until it is decided,
04:07this judgment has been given by a bench that had no authority,
04:14which was not made in accordance with the law.
04:16So this decision cannot be implemented.
04:19So the first thing is that we will not let it be implemented
04:22until a decision is made from another bench.
04:26But Mr. Ali, tell me, you are not even accepting the judge's committee
04:30who has to make the bench.
04:32So if the next bench is also formed to listen to this petition,
04:35it is also forming the same committee,
04:37which you are saying is not legally correct.
04:40There are no three top judges in it.
04:42So will you accept the bench formed by that committee?
04:46No, now we have said this,
04:48and I had also requested at the end,
04:51before leaving the court,
04:53that you call all the 18 judges, 19 judges,
04:57who are currently available in the Supreme Court,
05:01and settle the matter with them,
05:03that which bench will listen to this,
05:05and what will happen,
05:06and how to solve the problem.
05:08Because without this, we cannot move forward,
05:11and you will destroy the institutions.
05:13On that, they said,
05:15that you, the politicians, you also sit,
05:18we also give you this advice.
05:20So my opinion is still the same,
05:23that if this has to be solved,
05:25then all the judges should sit.
05:27But that is the discretion of the Chief Justice,
05:29that he calls his meeting in full court or not.
05:32No, Mr. Malik, this is not the case.
05:34The thing is that there are such Judicial Presidents,
05:37where other judges,
05:40if they sit in the majority and call,
05:43then they can also call a meeting.
05:45Like what happened to us,
05:47when the senior judge against Sajjad Ali Shah,
05:50Senior Punit Judge Ajmal Mian Sahib,
05:52he said that I will call the bench,
05:56but then he said that because I...
05:58Mr. Ali Zafar,
06:00Mr. Kashif is also trying to ask you something.
06:02But will this be a good President,
06:04or a bad President,
06:05that if the judges who are of a higher number,
06:08they make a bench like this and do the proceedings,
06:11will that be good?
06:13Mr. Kashif, it has happened before.
06:15It has happened, I know.
06:16But its consequences were also bad.
06:18There have been coups in this country,
06:20but they are not good.
06:21Its consequences were not good when it happened before.
06:23The consequences were absolutely right.
06:25Mr. Ajmal Mian became a very good Chief Justice,
06:28and he removed Mr. Sajjad Ali for his own resolution.
06:34And after that, the matter of the Supreme Court was fixed.
06:38But I am not saying that you should remove someone,
06:42I am saying that you should go towards the solution,
06:44solve it.
06:45There is still time,
06:47that the remaining judges,
06:49if they sit and call a meeting,
06:51on their administrative side,
06:53under Article 191,
06:55they can call a meeting.
06:57We have to save the institution.
07:00We have to help the institution.
07:02Mr. Ali, tell me one thing,
07:04I am venturing into a sensitive area,
07:07but now we can see that the numbers game,
07:11where there is so much tension,
07:13I think the numbers game will also be completed.
07:16We will discuss how it will be later.
07:19But the names are circulating in Islamabad,
07:23and we are also hearing this change,
07:25that the formula will also change,
07:28that next in line,
07:30will automatically become Chief Justice.
07:32If from this bench,
07:34one or two people,
07:36someone's name comes up as the next Supreme Court Chief Justice,
07:41and someone's name comes up as the Chief Justice of the next Constitutional Court.
07:45If from this bench,
07:47some people go there,
07:49will they get the impression of a quid pro quo?
07:53What will be the reaction of the legal community on that?
07:56Look, first of all,
07:58this bench is not a legitimate bench.
08:01This bench is illegal,
08:03it cannot decide.
08:05But if someone goes from this bench,
08:07as I said today,
08:09the perception is that
08:11someone or the other is benefiting or losing,
08:13there is a conflict of interest,
08:15the Supreme Court should solve it kindly.
08:17That is why all the judges should sit down.
08:19All the Supreme Court should sit down and solve it.
08:21There is only one way
08:23to save this institution,
08:25and that is this.
08:27And I said in the court,
08:29you also heard,
08:31even today I am saying this in front of you,
08:33that this position,
08:35look, the issue is very simple,
08:37that whatever will be the decision on the merits,
08:39the way it was done,
08:41that was wrong.
08:43I narrated it.
08:45But my argument was very clear.
08:47It was very clear at every point.
08:49And I could see,
08:51everyone knew,
08:53even the kids knew.