Judicial commission becomes controversial before functioning

ISLAMABAD: The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) has become controversial even before it has become functional, as some legal and constitutional experts have started to question the credibility of some of its members.
But some legal wizards say that the presence of a few controversial members in the JCP would have no affect on its functioning, as decisions regarding the appointment of judges would be taken on a majority basis. Talking to Pakistan Today, Justice (r) Tariq Mehmood said the leadership of the country’s lawyers was making the JCP controversial itself.
“They are providing an argument to opponents of the 18th Amendment while the case is still pending with the Supreme Court,” he said. Mehmood said the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) and provincial bar councils should have nominated leading advocates who enjoyed good reputation.
“In the beginning, the constitutional reforms committee had proposed in Article 175A that the vice chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council and the vice chairmen of provincial bar councils will be the members of the JCP. On my advice, Senator Raza Rabbani amended the clause, making way for advocates nominated by the PBC or provincial bar councils’ to become members of the judicial commission,” he said.
Mehmood said only those people should be members of the commission who could assert themselves, and “not sit like silent spectators in the JCP before the chief justice of Pakistan”. He also criticised the CJP’s nominee in the JCP. “He has not been in the field for the last many years, therefore, he is unfit to give his opinion on the appointment of judges,” Mehmood said.
“When the judges’ appointment case is taken up again in January 2011, the opponents of 175A will use it as an argument and try to prove that the clause has failed in experiment,” he added. He said the PBC should have nominated a man from outside.
“The bar council nominated one of its executive member for the JCP and also referred Fakharuddin G Ebrahim’s name without taking his consent,” he said, adding that the voting held in the PBC to decide between Khalid Ranjha and Ebrahim was meant to degrade the latter on political grounds.
He said when lawyers could not nominate a member for the commission with consensus; they had no right to ridicule the parliamentary commission for the appointment of judges. Ali Ahmed Kurd, PBC executive member, who voted against Ranjha, said he and his associates in the PBC believed that that a senior advocate from outside the PBC should have been nominated. “I nominated FG Ebrahim’s name for the very reason,” he said.
He said the appointment of judges through the JCP was a new experience and “we wanted that the new experiment should pass at least from our side”. However, Senator SM Zafar expressed his satisfaction on the formation of the JCP, saying he had no objection to any of its members, as they had been nominated by institutions.
“The members of the commission have been nominated with consultation and have full confidence in the judicial commission,” he added. Athar Minallah said the presence of one controversial person would not affect the functioning of the judicial commission. “It would have been better if the PBC had named an uncontroversial advocate, but in it has become virtually impossible to find such a man in our social fabric,” he said.