In response to Imran’s letter, CJP says ‘will neither be pressurised nor favour anyone’
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa would “neither be pressurised nor favour anyone”, said a press release issued from his office on Saturday following the receipt of a letter penned by PTI chief Imran Khan wherein he had sought protection of his party’s fundamental rights.
In his letter to CJP Isa on Thursday, Imran had asked the Supreme Court (SC) to intervene and stop the alleged abductions and disappearances of his party workers and journalists sympathetic to its cause. The letter had also called for action against the PTI’s “political victimisation” and sought equal opportunities for the party to carry out an election campaign.
A press release issued today by CJP Isa’s Secretary Dr Mushtaq Muhammad Ahmed said the top judge was “fully cognisant of his constitutional duties and will neither be pressurised nor favour anyone, and … shall continue to fulfil his duties and abide by the oath of his office”.
It said the top judge’s office had received a seven-page application on Friday which was “bound in a yellow-paper book, the kind used for filings in the Supreme Court”, yet the identity and contact details of the advocate who prepared the document were not mentioned.
“Misgivings also arise when the political party on whose behalf the document has ostensibly been sent is well represented by advocates. Only recently its advocates conducted two significant cases in the Supreme Court, on the military courts and on the elections,” the press release said, without identifying the advocates it was referring to.
It added that “surprisingly”, the document’s contents were also distributed to the media before the sealed envelope was even received by the CJP’s office.
In 2019, under the Imran-led PTI government, a presidential reference was filed against Justice Isa over alleged misconduct and non-disclosure of foreign assets.
However, after he was removed from power in 2022, Imran had admitted the reference was a “mistake” and he “should not have unnecessarily confronted the judiciary”.