In a significant development in Pakistan’s judicial system, Supreme Court Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi called for the recusal of Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and two other judges from the Supreme Judicial Council’s (SJC) inquiry against him. The call for recusal came on Friday amidst allegations of misconduct and possession of assets beyond his means against Justice Naqvi.
The SJC, a constitutional entity tasked with investigating complaints against judges of the Supreme and high courts, issued a show-cause notice to Justice Naqvi last month based on ten complaints. This council comprises the chief justice, two senior-most Supreme Court judges, and two senior-most high court chief justices. The current members are CJP Isa, Justices Sardar Tariq Masood, Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Lahore High Court Chief Justice Muhammad Ameer Bhatti, and Balochistan High Court Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar.
Justice Naqvi’s preliminary response highlighted his concerns about “serious prejudice” against him, questioning the impartiality of the proceedings. He argued that CJP Isa, Justice Masood, and CJ Akhtar, who had voted to issue the notice, should not participate in hearing the complaints due to perceived bias and potential conflict of interest.
Justice Naqvi pointed to Justice Isa’s previous opposition to his nomination to the apex court and a detailed dissenting note he had written. He also raised concerns about the denial of access to pertinent information, which he deemed a violation of his fundamental rights to a fair trial and access to information. Additionally, he noted the involvement of Justices Isa and Masood in urging expeditious proceedings on the complaints against him, which he interpreted as indicative of bias.
Furthermore, Justice Naqvi cited the involvement of Justices Isa and Akhtar in an inquiry commission investigating alleged audio leaks about him. Since these leaks are part of the SJC complaints, he argued their involvement constituted a conflict of interest. He also criticized Justice Masood for his delayed opinion on the complaints and alleged derogatory remarks against him.
Justice Naqvi’s objections extended to the SJC proceedings themselves, which he claimed were initiated in a manner conflicting with his constitutional rights and prior apex court judgements. He criticized the lack of discussion or inquiry into the allegations, the vagueness of the show-cause notice, and the differing nature of the allegations in the complaints.
Concluding his preliminary response, Justice Naqvi denounced the complaints as frivolous, unsupported by evidence, and politically motivated, calling for their dismissal. He emphasized the need for legality, propriety, and transparency in the proceedings against him.
