Termination in conflict with democratic practices: Ahmad Faaiz Hussain

Ahmad Faaiz Hussain, who was terminated from the office of Chief Justice today by the People’s Majilis, has said that he and Mu’tasim Adnan were both terminated from the Supreme Court bench today in contravention to democratic principles.

Speaking to Sun Online today, former Chief Justice said that there are nations which adhere to democratic principles and those that do not, and that he and Mu’tasim were taken off the bench in a way that is done things in the latter category.

Faaiz also said that today’s decision by the Majilis was unconstitutional, and that the Constitution clearly states the procedure to be followed in terminating judges.

“I must say that the decision made today by the Majilis is unconstitutional. The Constitution is very clear on how a judge can be dismissed from office. While those principles and procedures are there, doing it in a different way cannot be but unconstitutional”, said Faaiz.

Faaiz also said that the Judicial Service Commission did not complete mandatory steps when making a decision about a judge’s office. He said that the Commission acted ultra vires when it decided to propose dismissal of him and Mu’tasim from the Supreme Court bench.

Referring to the statutory amendment made by the Majilis few days ago, reducing the Supreme Court bench from 7 to 5, the former Chief Justice said that the Majilis has no power to amend law in contravention to the principles outlined in the Constitution. He also said that the Judiciary would not remain independent if judges are “dismissed so easily”.

The Majilis voted to dismiss two justice from Supreme Court bench on the basis of Article 154(b) of the Constitution, which says that a judge can be dismissed when the Judicial Service Commission has come to believe he or she is incapable of the office or has committed an act deemed inappropriate from a person holding the office of judgeship, and submits a proposal of dismissal to the Majilis, which can pass the motion by two-thirds majority vote.

The Judicial Service Commission decided that Faaiz and Mu’tasim “were not capable of holding the office of judgeship”, but did not specify any grounds for holding so.