The Pakistan government on Friday faced a lot of flak for its handling of the Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav’s case at the ICJ, with several legal experts in the country questioning the strategy adopted.
The Express Tribune reported that the Attorney General for Pakistan recommended other counsel for the case. The case was fought by Khawar Qureshi, a Qatar-based lawyer and also a London Queen’s Counsel.
Opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) further demanded that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif disclose the details of his frequent meetings with Indian businessman Sajjan Jindal, reported the Dawn.
The government also received criticism for not appointing an ad hoc judge from the country, while India already had a judge on the bench. The ICJ allows a State party which does not have a judge of its nationality on the bench to choose a person to sit as an ad hoc judge.
Another criticism held against the government is that they did not withdraw their acceptance of the ICJ jurisdiction in the case. Former Pakistan Bar Council Vice Chairman Farogh Naseem opined that instead of contesting the matter, the government should have withdrawn as soon as India took the Jadhav case to the ICJ.
Why did Pakistan not take the glaring and brutal human rights violations in Kashmir before the court, despite the fact that Islamabad had a strong case in this regard?Farogh Naseem, Former Bar Council Vice Chairman, Pakistan
Qureshi also came under fire for not having utilised the stipulated time allotted by the court for presenting the arguments, and instead wrapping up his case within 50 minutes, as against the given 90 minutes.
Qureshi’s presentation of the case has prompted many legal experts and other agencies to question the government’s decision to appoint a ‘foreigner’ as opposed to someone from Pakistan.
(With inputs from PTI.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)