In order to avoid raising doubts about the independence of the judiciary, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) requested on Friday that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) reject a recommendation to the Supreme Court to appoint justices on an as-needed basis.
The PTI has expressed concerns with the appointment of ad hoc judges, alleging that the action is intended to harm the party; however, the government has backed the decision, stating that it is compliant with the law.
The JCP was going to discuss the nomination of four ad hoc judges, Sardar Tariq Masood, Mushir Alam, Maqbool Baqar, and Mazhar Alam Miankhel, for a three-year term. The JCP was scheduled to meet today. However Alam and Baqar have turned down the offer.
While Baqar opted out for “personal reasons” and said that the criticism of the nomination of ad hoc judges was unfounded, Alam stated that he was occupied with charitable activities after retirement.
Ayub expressed “great concern” in his letter to the JCP members on the recent plan to name up to four ad hoc justices to the Supreme Court for a three-year term.
Ayub stated that he was submitting the letter because PTI legislators did not have a forum to express their concerns because the appointment issue was not being brought before the parliament’s committee.
This is especially true because there would be no other opportunity for the Opposition in the National Assembly and Senate to voice its opinions regarding the appointment of ad hoc judges, whereas it would have otherwise had the chance to do so in the Parliamentary Committee on judge nomination.
According to Ayub, there should be no opportunity to create the appearance that the Supreme Court’s ad hoc judge appointments are an attempt to sway the court’s balance of opinions against a certain political party in a topic as important as judge nominations.
Unfortunately, he stated, this impression is brought about by the date of the proposal for the appointment of ad hoc judges, their suggested duration of office, the quantity of judges requested for appointment, and the capricious process of their selection.
The head of the opposition in the NA stated, “This is damaging to the standing of the Supreme Court in society as a whole in which we are all stakeholders and which must at all times be seen to be above the political fray.”
He said that it would be preferable for the future chief justice to make decisions on these matters because the judges would be appointed for three years and the CJP was departing in October.
He continued by saying that there is cause for grave concern regarding the timing of the CJP’s proposal to appoint four ad hoc judges, since it appears to have been made on July 12, the day the entire court by a margin of three judges made an announcement regarding reserved seats in favor of the PTI.