Islamabad’s three major bar associations have rejected the recent constitutional amendments and announced their intent to resist them. The Islamabad High Court Bar Association, Islamabad District Bar Association, and the Islamabad Bar Council, in a joint press conference, declared that they will not only oppose the amendments but will actively work to prevent them from being implemented.
Addressing the press conference, Islamabad Bar Council’s Ali Imran Abbasi, along with other senior members, expressed concerns over the amendments, claiming they were designed to serve specific individuals and political parties.
He further added that the amendments would undermine the judiciary, reducing the Supreme Court’s powers to those of a session judge.Abbasi pointed out that recent amendments aimed at curbing judicial independence by dismissing judges who opposed certain political agendas.
The bar associations also demanded the Supreme Court Bar Association withdraw its review petition of Article 63A, accusing the Chief Justice of playing a facilitator’s role in passing these amendments.The lawyers claimed that a path was being paved for politically compliant judges, leaving no room for those with independent consciences.
The lawyers also announced an All Pakistan Lawyers Convention, scheduled for 7 October, to rally support against the amendments.President of the Islamabad High Court Bar, Riasat Ali Azad, reaffirmed the lawyers’ commitment to resist any attempt to impose what he termed as “civil martial law” in the country.
He warned that any judge following in the footsteps of Justice Munir would be held accountable, vowing to stand like a wall against the constitutional package.He further added that the amendments would undermine the judiciary, reducing the Supreme Court’s powers to those of a session judge.
Abbasi pointed out that recent amendments aimed at curbing judicial independence by dismissing judges who opposed certain political agendas.The bar associations also demanded the Supreme Court Bar Association withdraw its review petition of Article 63A, accusing the Chief Justice of playing a facilitator’s role in passing these amendments.
