• Bilawal says judicial reforms tough under any other CJP.
• Adds CJP Isa obeying parliament even at cost of power.
• PPP chief also defends timing of contentious legislation.
  

Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari has said that enacting the 26th Constitutional Amendment was not possible under any other chief justice, as he praised outgoing CJP Qazi Faez Isa.

The Shehbaz Sharif-led government, with the assistance of allies including the PPP, passed the contentious legislation in both lower and upper houses of parliament, which changed the procedure for the Chief Justice of Pakistan's (CJP) appointment, fixed the post's tenure, and formed constitutional benches.

In his interview with BBC Urdu, Bilawal defended the timing of the legislation, which the opposition says did not only come at a "questionable time" but was also "person-specific".

When asked about the timing, he said: "In the judicial history of Pakistan, there's one man [...] that has shown us that he's willing to obey parliament even at the cost of his personal power."

The PPP top leader, who also served as the foreign minister during the previous government under PM Shehbaz, said that the allies had a window while CJP Isa was in power and they availed it.

"We did have a window because we have seen how other judges have moulded the Constitution whether it's [Article] 63-A or the reserved seats case, to serve their personal interests.

"On the other hand, we had a chief justice who could withstand pressure from other judges also that may have tried to instigate him that 'this is not a question about you, but about the power [of the judiciary]."

Bilawal said that the allies had a window "of a man who would not undermine what we were doing".

The interviewer also asked the ex-FM whether he believes the government would not have been able to pass the amendments had Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, who is the senior-most judge, become the CJP.

In response, he said that the judgment of the reserved seats was "orchestrated" to undermine the strength of parliament and that the Article 63-A decision was not based on the Constitution.

"It is realistic for us to believe that if those decisions were to come into force, the difficulties for us passing any judicial reforms, no matter, who became the chief justice, would only be amplified."