Justice Mansoor Ali Shah refused to attend the full court reference called in honor of leaving Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, but he did break his silence on Friday over his cold war with the departing Chief Justice and voice his profound displeasure with the state of affairs in the Supreme Court.
Manoor Ali Shah sent a brief letter to the Supreme Court Registrar on Friday, directing him to put his reservations about CJP Isa on the record. According to reports, a number of other high court justices, including Justices Munib Akhtar, Ayesha Malik, and Athar Minallah, declined to attend CJP Isa’s full court reference on Friday.
Justice Shah said, “Today, I find myself obliged to make the same decision, though for various but more worrying causes,” as he presented his charge sheet against CJP Isa.
Justice Shah declared, “I am sorry but I am unable to stand at a Reference for such a Chief Justice in good conscience.”
According to Justice Shah’s letter, CJP Isa’s conduct demonstrated a flagrant lack of respect and collegiality, which are necessary to preserve judicial unity.
According to the letter, he (CJP) continuously avoided conversation and refused to use the consensus-building skills that are characteristic of judicial leadership because of his self-righteousness.
The letter also accused the departing chief justice of showing little respect for the court’s rulings and of “contemptuously” and “unashamedly” implying that the executive branch could not carry them out.
“He has fostered deep divisions and fractured relationships of colleagues within the legal system, leaving scars on the judiciary that will last long.”
Prior to the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which altered the selection procedure for the next top judge and resulted in the government notifying Justice Yahya Afridi, the third-most senior judge, as the future chief justice, Justice Shah was set to succeed CJP Isa as the next chief justice of Pakistan.
“Chief Isa, like an ostrich, with his head in the sand, remained complacent and indifferent to external influences and pressures on the judiciary.”
