Next-in-line CJP Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan resigns early

Next-in-line CJP Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan resigns early

The next-in-line judge to become Pakistan’s chief justice, Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, abruptly quit on Thursday.

Ahsan, one of the highest court’s senior justices, resigned unexpectedly and handed his letter of resignation to President Arif Alvi, sparking concerns over his sudden departure.

The significant development occurs just one day after Justice (retd) Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi resigned; the president has also accepted Naqvi’s resignation.

Since Justice Tariq Masood, the senior puisne judge, would have hung his robes before CJP Isa’s term ended in October of this year, Ahsan would have assumed the position of chief justice, the highest judicial office in the nation with ultimate power.

Ahsan resigned under Article 206(1) of the Constitution with immediate effect, stating in his letter to the president that he no longer wanted to serve as a judge on the highest court.

Analysts noted that the judges, along with Justice Munib Akhtar, were involved in giving controversial orders. Both judges were regarded as “close” to previous CJP Umar Ata Bandial.

The divisions among the justices of the supreme court became apparent while Bandial presided over the court. When CJP Isa took over, this trend stopped, but the harm was already done.

Hamid Mir, a senior journalist, told that Ahsan may have adopted “a way out,” or evade responsibility, after learning that two references were being written against him.

This was to be expected; attorneys had been discussing it for some time. The seasoned journalist Mir continued, “Had he stayed in office, he would be facing two separate references.”

This is advantageous. It is not concerning in any way. A new custom has emerged whereby lawyers file references against Supreme Court justices who have abused their positions, according to Mir.

Senior anchor Shahzeb Khanzada expressed worries, questioning why someone who would be the CJP in ten months would step down so soon.

Khanzada stated, “If he was afraid of being charged, he ought to have stayed and faced them, just like Qazi Faez Isa did.”

A lawyer filed a reference against then-CJP Bandial and three other judges, Justice Ahsan, Justice Akhtar, and Justice Naqvi, before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) in April of this year.

The complainant grounded his referral in an alleged breach of the Superior Judicial Court’s (SJC) Code of Conduct for judges, which was released on September 2, 2009.

Ahsan, who was born in 1960, started practicing law in the 1980s. On May 11, 2009, he was confirmed as a judge of the Lahore High Court. On November 6, 2015, he was appointed as the LHC’s Chief Justice.

On June 28, 2016, he was promoted to the Supreme Court, less than a year after holding the position as Chief Judge of the LHC.

It is significant to remember that he was a member of the notorious Panama Papers bench that disqualified Nawaz Sharif, the leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).

In addition, he was designated to supervise the National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) filing of references against Nawaz, his family, and former Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, which the top court had requested.

A member of the five-member bench that decided in 2018 that disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) was “permanent” also included Ahsan. Afterwards, he was a member of the bench that decided that a disqualified individual could not even serve as the leader of a political party.

A petition was filed to interpret Article 63-A, namely whether or not party lines’ votes would be counted, during the no-confidence vote against former prime minister Imran Khan. He sat on that bench as well, ruling in favor of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) that votes cast against party lines would not be tallied.

When the parliament passed laws last year, the Supreme Court would step in to stop the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) from taking power. Ahsan was on the bulk of those benches.

Regarding the NAB statutes, Ahsan had overturned them.

His legal opinions have consistently generated controversy. Legal expert Reema Omer stated that the orders he has issued are not deserving of praise.