- We have made our decision, we will not be part of this committee’s meetings: Gohar
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Barrister Gohar Khan on Tuesday declared that the party’s political committee decided it would not participate in the meeting of the parliamentary committee tasked with the appointment of the new Chief Justice of Pakistan.
PTI’s Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, Barrister Ali Zafar, and SIC chief Sahibzada Hamid Raza abstained from the committee’s meeting.
Earlier in the day, speaking to the media outside the Islamabad High Court that the PTI had submitted names to the speaker for the parliamentary committee before its political committee decided to boycott proceedings.
The decision was conveyed after a meeting between members of the parliamentary subcommittee and representatives from the PTI-SIC, held in the speaker’s chamber on Tuesday.
Despite efforts by the committee, including National Assembly Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq, to convince the PTI members to attend, Barrister Gohar Ali Khan confirmed that their political committee had decided to abstain from the proceedings.
“We have made our decision. We will not be part of this committee’s meetings,” Gohar Ali Khan stated, following discussions in Speaker Sadiq’s office.
Later, Barrister Gohar said that “The political committee’s decision is the party’s decision, we didn’t differentiate that these are our judges and those are theirs. However, as per the law, the senior most should be appointed.”
PTI Central Information Secretary Waqas Akram earlier announced in a post on X that the party’s political committee decided it would not participate in the meeting.
In a statement on X, PTI leader Zulfi Bukhari said: “Of course, we will not be part of any parliamentary committee. We believe not only the amendments but in the manner they were passed it self was illegal.
“Why would we legitimise them and be part of this mafia that is destroying the independence of our judiciary?” he asked rhetorically. “We are not going to part take in parliamentary committee, loud and clear.”
Earlier in the day, the speaker met with members of the special parliamentary committee to discuss the ongoing deadlock. The committee had formed a four-member subcommittee to engage with the PTI, consisting of Ahsan Iqbal, Rana Ansar, Raja Pervez Ashraf, and Kamran Murtaza, in an attempt to bring them into the discussions. Despite these efforts, the boycott continues.
The boycott is seen as a significant development in the appointment process, as the parliamentary committee is responsible for selecting the next Chief Justice. The absence of key political stakeholders, particularly PTI, which has voiced dissatisfaction with recent judicial decisions, has further complicated the process.
In an earlier attempt to resolve the deadlock, JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman had reached out to PTI’s Asad Qaiser, requesting his party’s participation. However, Qaiser requested more time to consult with party leadership, leading to continued uncertainty over PTI’s involvement.
The absence of both PTI and Sunni Ittehad Council members has caused the committee to postpone its meeting, initially scheduled to discuss the three senior-most judges nominated for the role of Chief Justice: Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, and Justice Yahya Afridi.
Despite the setback, the committee remained determined to push forward with the judicial appointment process, but it faces mounting pressure to ensure inclusivity in its final decision.
The Supreme Court Registrar had earlier submitted three names for consideration by the committee. These include the most senior judge, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, followed by Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Yahya Afridi. The nominees represent the three most senior justices of the Supreme Court, and one of them will be selected to succeed the incumbent Chief Justice, Qazi Faez Isa.
The submission also included a brief one-page report providing a summary of the judges’ backgrounds, including their dates of birth, educational qualifications, legal careers, and timelines for when they were appointed as high court chief justices and their elevation to the Supreme Court.
