Lawyers to challenge, continue protests against ‘illegal' appointments in SC: Hamid Khan

• Hamid Khan says newly appointed judges would have to go.
• Adds no consensus in the entire process of appointments. 
• "Matter should not be heard by constitutional bench but by full court."

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Senator and senior lawyer Hamid Khan said on Monday that the lawyer community would challenge the nominations of six judges to the Supreme Court by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) in the apex court, vowing to continue the "protest movement".

"The appointment has no legitimacy as two senior judges and the opposition lawmakers walked out of the meeting...they [newly-nominated SC judges] would have to go," the senior lawyer said while speaking on Geo News programme 'Aaj Shahzeb Khanzada Kay Sath'.

His remarks came hours after the judicial commission named six high court judges for elevation to the Supreme Court. The chief justices of all high courts, except the Lahore High Court (LHC) were among the six judges nominated.

These included Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, Justice Shakeel Ahmad and Justice Aamer Farooq.

The Commission, also by the majority of its total membership, nominated IHC's Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb for appointment as the Acting Judge of the Supreme Court.

The JCP meeting came amid opposition voiced by four apex court judges and the former ruling party, following the recent transfer of judges to the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

Speaking during today's programme, Hamid said that there was no consensus in the entire process of the appointments, terming them a "unilateral selection".

"Immediately, it may not be possible, but our struggle will be long. We will continue to stand against today’s appointment because there was only one vacancy…how could you fill seven or eight [vacancies]," he said.

He stated this while responding to a question as to what would be the lawyers’ next move against the SC judges' appointments.

Responding to another question, the PTI Senator said the matter should not be heard by a constitutional bench but by a full court just like their demand for the 26th Constitutional Amendment.

"The matter is related to SC judges' appointment...it is not linked with the formation of the constitutional court."

Furthermore, he said, the people who abuse their powers and defy the rule of law don't last long. "Our struggle may last six months or a year, the situation in the apex court and other high courts, is not workable."

When asked if the full court would also consist of newly appointed judges, Hamid responded that they cannot be part of the bench because their "appointment would become disputed".

"They cannot be judges in their own cause," he said. Similarly, the matter cannot be heard by a constitutional bench, he added.

Judges’ transfer saga

Earlier this month, the judicial commission sought nominations from all high courts, requesting a list of five senior judges from each.

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) initially forwarded the names of three judges — Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb — because the other two judges, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri and Justice Babar Sattar, did not meet the minimum requirement of five years of service.

However, Lahore High Court’s Justice Sarfraz Dogar, along with two judges from the SHC and BHC, was recently transferred to the IHC. Following his transfer, the IHC administration revised its seniority list and designated him as the senior puisne judge. Therefore, his name was also sent to the JCP.

Following this transfer saga, five IHC judges raised the issue of seniority of judges and sent a representation to the IHC chief justice against the new seniority list and also sent a copy to CJP Afridi.

The judges argued that any transferred judge must take a fresh oath under Article 194 of the Constitution, which would place them at the bottom of the IHC’s seniority list. This would render them ineligible for immediate consideration for the position of IHC chief justice.