It is stated that the verdict has not been passed. So was the posts on injustice an attempt to pre- empt or black mail in acquiring a favourable verdict.
The adversary happened to be the father in law of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice is not a party to the case. The Supreme Court has not yet issued it's verdict. Yet the Chief Justice is condemned to be guilty of favouring his father in law.
A photo of the Chief Justice is posted with the demand that he be removed. On what grounds? Have anyone really come across such similar malicious attack against any Chief Justice and Judiciary of any Country?
No one has presented any proof/ evidence of nexus in the judicial duty of the Chief Justice with that of his father in law. You choose your spouse but in laws come as package. And no father in law can be subjected to the likibg of his son in law or daughter in law and vice versa.
It was magnanimous on part of His Majesty the King to order Supreme Court to review once again the High Court verdict. And what gratitude is shown. Even before the Supreme Court has concluded the judicial process, the King is indirectly told to remove the Chief Justice.
This is dangerous both socially, politically and in the callous exercise of freedom of speech. But if it is proven that all along the Chief Justice has been aiding unscrupulously his father in law to deny justice to others then the Chief Justice is guilty of acting against Justice and national interest. However, if he is not guilty then those that cry out for him to be ousted just because they want to ensure their friend/ assumed victim to escape justice, then these people are working against the national interest. The detractors are not prepared to let the Supreme Court wind up the judicial process of the case and issue the verdict.Why?
His Majesty the King has entertained the appeal of Shacha Wangmo and commanded Supreme Court to re-examine the High Court verdict. But Namgay Zam and Shacha Wangmo do not have the basic human courtesy forget respect for the very magnanimous King, to await the verdict from the Supreme Court. They cried foul and called for removal of the Chief Justice.
Why was the King approached when they had no faith in the working of the King? What is anti national ? Anyone is welcome to define especially the light weight glib writers who have questioned my usage of the term.
I have initially cautioned innocent people from being seduced by sad story. Then there was a post with Chief Justice Photo calling for his removal.
Only then I called for a Open Public Hearing to really get to the bare bone of this huge controversy. Naturally, Namgay Zam has lot of media colleagues like all other journalists who have the professional power of the pen. They can if they wish create public impression. Thats not to say that there would be seasoned journalists who would not have their own take of the sensational and grave allegations and acted accordingly. It is necessary to determine who is working against the national interests: the Chief Justice or Namgay Zam and her vocal supporters. I do not agree that those who deliberately fuel controversy and fan malicious allegation can deny responsibility for their deed.
Why are those making cries of justice not supporting the call for Open Public Hearing for them to substantiate their allegations against the Chief Justice? Afraid that they cannot in person face their own shadows? Afraid that their anti national sentiment will be dug out?
I do not know Sonam Phuntsho. And for that matter I know the Chief Justice only as a public figure. And as for all others you are strangers that I come across in social media. There is no personal likes or dislikes. It's a waste of time.
Let me conclude by asking " Could hecklers for ' their kind of justice ' awaited, at the least, the verdict from the Supreme Court". Afterall His Majesty the King on behalf of Shacha Wangmo and in the interest of leaving no stone unturned to dispense justice, had magnanimously Commanded Supreme Court to judicially process the case whose appeal had already been rejected by the Supreme Court.