ISLAMABAD: It appears that the Tyrian White case—a paternity case brought against former prime minister Imran Khan for allegedly hiding his daughter—has evolved beyond a simple allegation of paternity.
This is due to the fact that the case was among the few that Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges expressly mentioned as having drawn “pressure” from intelligence agents following the release of a letter that six judges had sent to the Supreme Judicial Council.
The letter addressed to the SJC on March 25 stated that “considerable pressure was brought to bear on judges who had opined that the petition was not maintainable, by operatives of the ISI, through friends and relatives of these judges.”
The allegations of meddling in judicial affairs have now been taken up by the Supreme Court in exercise of its suo moto jurisdiction, following the government’s fruitless attempt to form a one-member commission to investigate the matter. A full court hearing is now scheduled for April 29.
The case will be reopened after almost a year, according to IHC judges, who noted that intelligence officers exerted “considerable pressure” to make sure the plea was accepted as “maintainable.”
This case, which the letter refers to as “Muhammad Sajid vs. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi (Writ Petition No. 3061 of 2022),” has been on hold since IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq disbanded the three-member bench that was hearing the case in May of last year. Even at the time, the circumstances behind the bench’s dissolution sounded strange, but the high court is likely to revisit the issue in the days ahead.
Maintainability and a “too soon” decision
On March 30, 2023, a three-person bigger bench made up of Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Chief Justice Aamer Farooq of the IHC, and Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir had reserved their decision.
In previous hearings, Justice Kayani had questioned the petitioner Mohammad Sajid’s locus standi, or right of audience, but Justice Farooq, the presiding court, seemed to be persuaded on this point.
It should be mentioned that Athar Minallah, the former chief justice of the IHC, had previously denied a petition that was comparable.
The petitioner’s attorney contended that Imran Khan had filed an affidavit with the Superior Court of California in a case pertaining to Tyrian, his purported daughter, during the petition hearing on March 2, 2023.
He was corrected by the chief justice, who stated that the document was actually a declaration signed by a Pakistani oath commissioner rather than an affidavit.
At the time, Justice Kayani had questioned the petitioner’s sincerity, pointing out that only Tyrian White herself could submit a petition seeking paternity rights. She also pointed out that the statement made no reference of Mr. Khan being the girl’s father.
Then, on May 10, two judges’ opinions were posted on the court’s official website, but they were removed in a matter of minutes.
Then, in a statement, the registrar’s office made it clear that “two judges’ opinions were uploaded alone with office notes, which does not constitute [a] judgment of the court.”
The statement added that action was “being taken against those responsible for uploading the opinion without issuance of cause list” and that the “chief justice has reconstituted the bench for rehearing of the case.”
Not understanding each other
The six IHC justices’ letter also made hints about the disagreements among the judges about the current chief justice of the “youngest high court” in the nation.
The letter included several exchanges with the chief justice of the IHC, particularly in relation to the Tyrian White case.
The judges complained that the interference persisted even after the IHC CJ had assured them that no official from the intelligence services would speak with them.
The fact that one of the letter’s authors is senior puisne judge Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, who is the most senior judge after the chief justice, is significant.
Since they both once served on the same division bench and resolved several significant political matters, including references against Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz, and Asif Ali Zardari, Chief Justice Farooq and Justice Kayani appear to get along well.
Before the bench hearing for the Tyrian White case was dissolved, the two were also present.
But in a subsequent complaint filed with the Supreme Judicial Council, Justice Kayani was charged with “inducing and convincing other judges of high court” in relation to the letter.
Disparities between the chief justice and the second-most senior judge in the superior judiciary are “a routine occurrence,” according to retired Justice Noorul Haq N. Qureshi, who was also a former senior puisne judge of the IHC. Qureshi told Dawn this. According to him, some top justices desire “absolute authority,” but the senior-most judge anticipates power sharing.
He stated, “I went through the same thing, but I never complained because I thought it would damage the reputation of the organization that provides justice to the general public.”
