SC To Take Up Suo Moto Case On Vawda’s Press Conference Today

Abdullah Hussain (@Abdulla99267510) Published May 17, 2024 | 11:21 AM

LA SC three-member bench led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Irfan Saadat and Justice Naeem Akhtar will take up the case.

ISLAMABAD: (UrduPoint/UrduPoint / Pakistan Point News-May 17th, 2024) The Supreme Court of Pakistan is set to hear a suo moto case concerning Faisal Vawda’s recent press conference today (Friday).

A SC three-member bench led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Irfan Saadat and Justice Naeem Akhtar will take up the case.

The Supreme Court took the suo moto notice in response to Vawda’s press conference held two days ago.

Addressing the press conference, Vawda criticized judges of the Islamabad High Court.

This issue was also discussed during a hearing on the NAB amendments case, where Justice Athar Minallah expressed his discontent with Vawda’s comments to the Attorney General.

During the press conference, Vawda demanded evidence of alleged interference in the judiciary, stressing that the court requires proof to proceed with cases. He claimed that his reputation had been damaged and warned against tarnishing the reputation of Pakistan’s institutions.

Vawda, a former Federal minister, questioned the dual nationality status of judges, drawing a comparison to the prohibition on politicians holding dual nationality.

He expressed his confidence in the integrity of Justice Mansoor Shah, Justice Ayesha Malik, and Justice Athar Minallah, describing Minallah as a principled judge who avoids inappropriate conduct.

Vawda also remarked that Justice Athar Minallah is impartial, does not meet with political representatives secretly, and does not make decisions for media attention. He emphasized Minallah’s diligence and commitment to his role.

Furthermore, Vawda mentioned a press release issued by Justice Babar Sattar on a public holiday, and a letter he wrote on April 30 to the judges of the Islamabad High Court. He raised concerns about transparency under Article 19A, arguing that the lack of information exacerbates ambiguity.

He stressed the necessity of presenting evidence regarding actions taken before individuals became judges, suggesting that questions will arise if no records are available.