Arrest warrant triggers tension
ISLAMABAD: Tension between two constitutional office-holders has boiled over into outright confrontation after a Lahore High Court judge issued arrest warrant for Federal Ombudsperson for Protection against Harassment of Women as the latter has moved the President for a reference against the former.
In a letter sent to the President of Pakistan, the ombudsperson, Justice (R) Yasmeen Abbasi has requested him to proceed in this matter and file a reference to Supreme Judicial Council against LHC’s Justice Mansoor Ali Shah due to alleged misconduct and subsequent removal.
The conflict surfaced over the question of jurisdiction as an accused in the case of harassment of a woman was stayed by LHC when it was pending with the ombudsperson. Instead of suspending proceeding in light of the stay order, Justice Abbasi continued hearing.
As the accused moved LHC against the ombudsperson for violating the court order, Justice Shah served a contempt of court notice directing her to appear before the bench. Adamant that no court can have a jurisdiction to entertain a matter pending with the ombudsperson, Justice Abbsey didn’t show up before Justice Shah who subsequently issued her arrest warrant last Monday.
She has now moved the president requesting him to file a reference against Justice Shah. The letter, its signed copy is available with The News, has accused Justice Shah of flouting “his oath of office and code of conduct by deliberately going against” the rules governing the jurisdiction.
Section 18 of Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reform Act 2013 has been referred. It reads: “No court or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of an Ombudsman nor any court or authority shall assume jurisdiction in respect of any matter pending with or decided by an Ombudsman.”
A case decided by federal ombudsman can only be challenged through filing a representation before the president. That by means of order dated November 3, and December 7, the letter goes on, Justice Shah “not only assumed jurisdiction in the matter but the honorable judge went a step further by issuing bail-able warrant of arrest in a matter over which the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere.”
While in the instant case, the letter argues, the high court didn’t have a jurisdiction, “the judicial forums exercise restraint and try to resolve the issues amicably without ever resorting to tactics of arrogance and high-handedness” even in the matters of parallel jurisdiction.
In the case under question, the letter notes, the learned judge has “deliberately attempted to unduly and illegally harass and pressurize the Federal Ombudsperson from discharging her legal responsibilities without fear, favor or undue influence.”
The letter then quotes the code of conduct of judges in order to frame an argument that Justice Shah “seems to be clearly negating such norms and etiquettes.”
Article 2 of the code of conduct for apex court judges cited in the letter reads: “A judge should be God-fearing, law-abiding, abstemious, truthful of tongue, wise in opinion, cautious and forbearing, blameless and untouched by greed. While dispensing justice, he should be strong without being rough, polite without being weak, awe inspires in his warnings and faithful to his word, always preserving calmness, balance and complete detachment, for the formation of correct conclusions in all matters coming before him.”
It is thus absolutely clear, the ombudsperson wrote, that the aforesaid judge has abused and misused his authority requesting the president to proceed in line with article 209 of the Constitution for his trial due to alleged “misconduct and consequently removed from the position of a judge.”
