Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Mian Saqib Nisar on Wednesday while hearing a petition challenging Bukhari’s appointment due to dual nationality, said that he only wants to see whether the London-based businessman was appointed in accordance with the law.
During the hearing petitioner Adil Chattha requested the court to adjourn the hearing till December 15 as his counsel was out of town. However, the chief justice inquired, “When was Bukhari introduced in Pakistan and when did he come into the limelight?” At this, Ahsan said, “Bukhari is a special assistant to the premier, not a parliamentarian and his profile has been presented in court.”
Justice Nisar continued, “I think Bukhari came to people’s notice the first time when there was an issue and he had gone to receive someone.” However, the petitioner said, “People came to know of him after he met Reham Khan in London following her [and Prime Minister Imran Khan’s] divorce.” Objecting to the petitioner’s remarks, Ahsan said, “Divorce is a personal matter and should not be raised for debate. Bukhari has been very active with the Pakistani community in London and this youngster performed brilliantly in the first 100 days of the government.”
“Bukhari has also donated all his salary earned from the time of appointment till now to the dam fund,” the counsel added. At this, the chief justice smiled and said, “That is very good.” “Although he is the prime minister’s special assistant on overseas Pakistanis, he also attends EOBI meetings.” At this, the chief justice remarked, “Tomorrow the government will have to pay for how many good people they appointed and how many they didn’t. We are not related to this,” said petitioner.
“We only want to see whether Bukhari was appointed in accordance with the law or not,” Justice Nisar added. He further said, “If there was nepotism in his appointment, then the court will review the matter.” CJP continued, “There was a lot of talk when we used the word nepotism in one decision. We cannot change the legal system if somebody was upset because of it.” “It is not our job to mock the administration. Nobody told them that this is a quo warranto case and nepotism was brought up as a grounds for argument. The petitioner has not raised the issue of nepotism,” he added.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
17 November, 2019