Supreme Court strikes down Article 63-A verdict | Barrister Ali Zafar's Blunt Statement - video Dailymotion

ARY NEWS

#article63a #barristeralizafar #supremecourthearing #supremecourt #kashifabbasi #muhammadmalick   Supreme Court strikes down Article 63-A verdict | Barrister Ali Zafar's Blunt Statement

Transcript

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.

Supreme Court strikes down Article 63-A verdict | Barrister Ali Zafar's Blunt Statement

Category

Transcript

Recommended