- Gen Bajwa’s Extension case hearing held
- Says we are answerable to only God and no one else
The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing of a case pertaining to the extension/reappointment in incumbent Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa’s tenure until today.
The three-year term of Gen Bajwa, who is reaching the age of superannuation [60 years] next year, as Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) is ending on Thursday at midnight. He will be able to continue his service if the SC decides the case in his favour before November 29.
An SC bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Asif Saeed Khosa, Justice Mian Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah heard the case. The army chief was represented by Farogh Naseem, who resigned from his post as law minister yesterday to pursue the case, while Attorney General (AG) Anwar Mansoor Khan presented arguments on behalf of the government.
The chief justice, before wrapping up the hearing for the day, said that there were three points which the court will consider:
the law, the procedure involved, the grounds for granting the army chief an extension
He said that the first two issues are very important and based on those,
the court will announce its decision. It is pertinent to mention that over the past two decades, Gen Raheel Sharif is the only army chief to have retired on time.
The day-long hearing was adjourned twice. The second time the court resumed proceedings, the attorney general informed the court that the summary which notifies Gen Bajwa’s extension had referred to Article 243 and Article 245 of the Constitution.
The chief justice pointed out that the prime minister had requested a reappointment whereas the president had issued a notification for extension in the army chief’s tenure.
At this, the courtroom erupted into laughter.
“Please do not do something like this,” said Justice Shah. The chief justice wondered how it was that no one had bothered to read the summary once again.
“They never bothered to check what is written and what they are sending,” he said. The attorney general chalked the gaffe up to “clerical errors” by the ministry, adding that the army chief is due to retire at midnight tomorrow.
“Why do you make such errors?” asked the chief justice.
“On the one hand it says he is retiring while on the other, it says he is not retiring. Then it states that the army chief does not retire at all. Please clarify this,” the bench remarked.
“Army officers are respectable but the law ministry, with its erroneous documentation, has attempted to disrespect them,” said the chief justice.
“If his tenure had not been extended and if he had retired, then what would have happened?” asked Justice Shah.
“Then he would have handed over command to his subordinate,” said the attorney general, adding that the government notification had not specified a duration. CJP said You have turned the army chief into a shuttlecock,” he said, adding: “You should have the degrees of those people examined who are responsible for drafting these documents.”
Justice Shah wondered how an army chief can be reappointed to the office “when he is no longer part of the staff”.
At this, the chief justice once more inquired whether a retired officer can be reappointed at all.
The attorney general said that “until the command is handed over to another general, the army chief cannot be considered retired”, contending that the army as an institution cannot operate without a chief.
Justice Alam responded: “In the past, the court never stepped in to assess someone’s extension in tenure.”
The chief justice pointed out that in each of the summaries – of the cabinet, prime minister and president – there was a different viewpoint. Agencies
