ISLAMABAD: A leading lawyer, known for his principles and professionalism, has withdrawn as attorney of a wealthy politician for the simple reason that the latter insisted on dragging the review petition in the Supreme Court.
Khawaja Haris, advocate, who belongs to an illustrious family of Lahore, also returned the fee, believed to be handsome, to Ijaz Chaudhry, now associated with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). Such refund was absolutely unique.
Ijaz Chaudhry was elected to the National Assembly from NA-108 Mandi Bahauddin in the 2013 general elections as an independent. He later joined the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). During the PTI’s sit-in, he switched over to it. Previously, he was aligned with the PML-Q after having been elected from the same constituency in 2008.
His victory was challenged by PML-N’s losing contestant, Mumtaz Tarar, in the election tribunal, which disqualified him for possessing a fake educational degree. His appeal was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, he filed a review petition against this ruling and engaged Khawaja Haris as lawyer. It was also rejected on Friday.
In a letter, a copy of which is available with The News, to the apex court, the lawyer said thatdespite the detailed judgment in the appeal has been released since October 2014, Ijaz Chaudhry has shown scant interest in pursuing the review petition for final decision.
Moreover, he said, when the case was last fixed for hearing on January 12, 2016, Ijaz Chaudhry again insisted that an adjournment be obtained. On this, the lawyer informed him that he “shall not be a party to any request for adjournment”.
In fact, his insistence was so upsetting that later on the same day the lawyer informed him through his office that he will no longer be representing him in the review petition under any circumstances, the letter said.
Despite this, Khawaja Haris wrote, it has been reported that Ijaz Chaudhry arranged to feign ignorance before the court on March 12, 2016 as to the reason for the counsel’s non-appearance although he had been informed about the date of hearing.
Ijaz Chaudhry had stated in the court that his lawyer was busy in Lahore and that was why could not attended the proceedings.
The lawyer said he was of the firm belief that a counsel gets engaged for the purpose of conducting/arguing the case on behalf of his client and not for seeking unnecessary adjournments and that any such insistence on the part of the client serves as a valid cause for the attorney to sever the lawyer-client relationship. In any case, such tendency needs to be severely discouraged.
He regretted the inconvenience caused to the court and Tarar’s counsel on January 12, and tendered his apology for the same, as, in retrospect, he said, it is his considered opinion that he should have personally been present in the court to explain the reasons for his inability to represent his client in the review petition rather than relying solely to Ijaz Chaudhry to own the truth.
Khawaja Haris further wrote that he has yet again informed his client of his inability to represent him. A copy of the notice sent to him is appended with this application.
He requested that the court may graciously condone his absence on January 1 and allow him to withdraw as counsel.