ISLAMABAD: Cracks emerged in the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) the regulatory body of lawyers on Saturday after a number of members from the 23-strong council came out in support of the outspoken human rights activist Asma Jahangir and her tirade against the judiciary over the Panama Papers case.

Kamran Murtaza, who also served as president of the prestigious Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Akhtar Hussain, Sher Mohammad, Abid Saqi, Raheel Kamran Sheikh, and former member Yaseen Azad supported Ms Jahangir`s stance, who had questioned why only politicians were held accountable and castigated the alleged role of the judiciary and the military establishment in Pakistani politics.

They openly distanced themselves from PBC Vice Chairman Ahsan Bhoon, who on Friday had dubbed her remarks a `vilification campaign` to bring the Supreme Court and the armed forces of Pakistan intodisrepute in the wake of the July 28 judgement, disqualifying former prime minister Nawaz Sharif.

However, Shoaib Shaheen a member of Ms Jahangir`s rival Hamid Khan group, which has 11 members in the PBC told Dawn the apparent divide was `nothing but a farce`. He claimed that all members were still united, and their statements were only meant to confuse the legal f raternity.

Defending his position, Mr Bhoon explained that he had always welcomed and respected everyone`s right of freedom of expression, but it would be wrong to claim that whatever was being propagated [by Ms Jahangir] reflected the aspirations of the entire legal community.

`We believe in positive criticism of judgements rendered by the courts, but it should not mean maligning the sacred institutions of the state for the benefit of one individual alone,` he said.

In a joint statement, Sher Mohammad, Akhtar Hussain and Kamran Murtaza expressed their shock over the term `vilification campaign`, saying that PBC members would soon call a meeting to discuss the vice chairman`s controversial statement.

They explained that there was near complete consensus within the bar that the disqualification of the former prime minister was not carried out according to well-settled principles of law, and that Supreme Court supervision of a trial by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was unprecedented.

In line with the directions of the July 28 judgement, SC Justice Ijazul Ahsan has been nominated as the monitoring judge to oversee the filing of NAB references against Nawaz Sharif and his family, as well as the subsequent trial in the accountability court.

They said in unequivocal terms that the PBC supported Ms Jahangir`s views and believed that she always had spoken boldly and clearly at critical times.

`She has every right to express her views, though she may not represent a body of the bar, but she has a strong influence on a sizeable section of society,` they stressed.

Ms Jahangir`s statements were appreciated by several members of the bar, the statement said, adding though there were some disagreements, this was an essential feature of the legal fraternity, that accommodated all points of views.

Meanwhile, PBC`s Raheel Kamran Sheikh was of the view that when the judiciary had given its verdict in the Panama Papers case and the Sharifs had expressed their intention to assail the judgement in review, which was their constitutional right, and when the new prime minister and his cabinet had been sworn in, the system was on the constitutional track.Therefore, the demands for acrossthe-board accountability, or seeking a constitutional amendment to grant right to appeal for orders passed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution were justified, he said.

Irrespective of the Panamagate verdict, on which people were entitled to hold differing opinions and make fair comments, he said, such demands could not be described as vilifying the judiciary or the armed forces.

Even the apex court,in its 2011 judgement in the Asfandyar Wali case, had acknowledged that without accountability, the independence of the judiciary could not be ensured.

He recalled that Mr Bhoon had previously attempted to have a PBC resolution, criticising the assumption and exercise of jurisdiction by the court in Panama Papers case, passed in its 217th meeting.

The matter had been pending before the council since Nov 2016, he said.

Therefore,in the absence of a resolution passed in a meeting of the council, the views expressed by the vice chairman or the chairman of the executive committee were merely their personal opinions, he said.

Mr Saqi explained that though he might not agree with all the views expressed by Ms Jahangir, he would always respect her right to express herself freely.

`She speaks without influence andhas her own point of view, which she has every right to put forward,` he said, adding that the PBC could not be a body that censored the views of the legal fraternity.

Mr Azad was of the view that neither the judiciary nor the military was above criticism, especially when they became alleged arbiters of political wrangling, adding that Ms Jahangir`s views were shared by a large cross-section of the lawyers throughout the country.

The Panama Papers judgement, he explained, had several flaws and was an exception in many respects. He said the process adopted throughout the hearings, including the adverse remarks, were likely to draw criticism.

Ms Jahangir herself was of the view that the bar council was a regulatory body for lawyers, not a `censorship board for the legal fraternity`. Neither are they, through their mandate, equipped or given the responsibility to act as shields to any criticism of the judiciary or the military.

`They are not [the judiciary`s] protectors, but must promote the cause of rule of law and must encourage diversity, she emphasised.

Referring to incumbent SCBA president Rasheed A Rizvi, she said he agreed that the Panamagate judgement contained errors and an appeal should be provided to cases heard under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.