ISLAMABAD - The Islamabad High Court (IHC) will Monday (today) take up a petition seeking recovery of salaries received by former chief judge of the top court of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB), Rana Mohammad Shamim, for issuing a controversial affidavit.
A single bench of IHC comprising Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri will take up the petition moved by Chaudhry Mohammad Akram, a former vice president of the Islamabad Bar Association.
On November 16, Justice Shamim issued an affidavit claiming that former chief justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar had asked an IHC judge to delay grant of bail to Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz leaders Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Nawaz.
In his petition, Chaudhry Akram cited Rana Shamim and the secretary of law and justice and secretary interior as respondents. According to the petition, the former chief judge’s affidavit was a violation of Article 5 of the Constitution that requires every citizen to be loyal with the state and obedient to the constitution.
The petitioner contended in the petition that Rana Shamim has tried to scandalize the judiciary which is an important pillar of the state. He requested the court to proceed against Rana Shamim and direct the federal government to place his name on the Exit Control List.
He also said that since Rana Shamim has violated his oath of office, he should be treated as an alien to the office of the chief judge and stopped from using the title of former chief judge. Besides, he added that he should be disqualified from holding any public office in future.
The petitioner also sought recovery of salaries drawn by Rana Shamim as chief judge of Gilgit-Baltistan.
In this matter, IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah has already initiated contempt proceedings against Rana Shamim, Editor-in-Chief of Jang Group Mir Shakeelur Rehman, Editor Investigation Ansar Abbasi and Resident Editor Aamir Ghouri.
After a preliminary hearing on Nov 15, the chief justice’s order issued the order saying,
“The news report and the purported affidavit have cast scandalous aspersions on the integrity, independence and impartiality of the court and its judges. Liberty of the press and freedom of speech are of paramount importance but they are not absolute. They are subservient to proper administration of justice.”