RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Chaudhry Iftikhar’

Supreme Court of Pakistan Judgment on NRO (Dec 16, 2009)

05 Mar

 

supremecourt_building

 

Thursday, December 17, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Original Jurisdiction)

Present

Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ. 
Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal
Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan
Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday
Mr. Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan
Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani
Mr. Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk
Mr. Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed
Mr. Justice Ch. Ijaz Ahmed
Mr. Justice Muhammad Sair Ali
Mr. Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui
Mr. Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja
Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali
Mr. Justice Khilji Arif Hussain 
Mr. Justice Rahmat Hussain Jafferi
Mr. Justice Tariq Parvez
Mr. Justice Ghulam Rabbani

Constitution petition Nos 76 TO 80 OF 2007 & 59/2009, and Civil Appeal No 1094 of 2009 (On appeal from the order dated 15.1.2009 passed by High Court of Sindh in Karachi in Const.P.No.355 of 2008) and HRC NOS.14328-P TO 14331-P & 15082-P OF 2009

Dr. Mobashir Hassan (Const.P.76/07)
Roedad Khan (Const. P.77/07)
Qazi Hussain Ahmad (Const.P.78/07)
Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif (Const.P.79/07)
Muhammad Tariq Asad (Const.P.80/07)
Syed Feroz Shah Gillani (Const.P.59/09)
Fazal Ahmad Jat (C.A.1094/09)
Shaukat Ali (H.R.C.14328-P/09)
Doraiz (H.R.C.14329-P/09)
Zulqarnain Shahzad (H.R.C.14330-P/09)
Abid Hussain (H.R.C.14331-P/09)
Manzoor Ahmad (H.R.C.15082-P/09)

Petitioners Versus Federation of Pakistan, etc. 

Respondents.

For the petitioners: Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Sr. ASC. 
Mr. Suleman Akram Raja, ASC. 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, AOR. 

Assisted by:

Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, Sr.ASC
Mr. M.Afzal Siddiqui, ASC
Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb, ASC
Mr. Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, ASC
Barrister Feroze Jamal Shah, Adv.
Mr. Hameed Ahmeed, Adv.
Mr. Mustafa Aftab Sherpao, Adv.
Mr. Sameer Khosa, Adv.
Mr. Umar Akram Chaudhry, Adv.
Malik Ghulam Sabir, Adv.

(in Const. P. 76/2007)

Mr. Muhammad Ikram Ch. ASC.

Mr. G. N. Gohar, AOR. 

(in Const. P. 77/2007)

Dr. Farooq Hassan, Sr.ASC
Mr. Hashmat Ali Habib, ASC

Ch. Muhammad Akram, AOR

(in Const.P.78/07)

Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, ASC

(in Const.P.79/07)

Mr. Tariq Asad, ASC (in person)

(in Const.P.80/07)

Mr. A.K. Dogar, Sr. ASC

(in Const.P.59/09)

Mr. Shahid Orakzai (in person)

(in CMA 4842/09)

Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr. ASC

(in CA.1094/2009) NEMO (in HR.Cases)

For the Respondents:

For M/o Law: Mr. Kamal Azfar, Sr. ASC. Assisted by 
Mr. K.K. Agha, ASC. 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR.

(in Const.P.76-77/07)

Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR.

(in Const.P.78-80/07 & 59/09)

For the NAB: Dr. Danishwar Malik, PG.
Mr. Abdul Baseer Qureshi, Addl: PG 
Dr. Asghar Rana, ADPG, 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR.
Mr. Naveed Ahsan, Chairman NAB

On Court Notice: Mr. Shah Khawar, Acting Attorney General for Pakistan. 

Assisted by:

Agha Tariq Mehmood Khan, DAG. 
Mr. Dil Muhammad Alizai, DAG.
Raja Aleem Abbassi, DAG. 

For Govt of Balochistan: Dr. Salahuddin Mengal, AG. 

For Govt of NWFP: Mr. Zia-ur-Rehman, A.G.
Mr Zahid Yousaf, Addl. A.G. 
Mr Naveed Akhtar, A.A.G.

For Govt of the Punjab: Mr M. Hanif Khattana, Addl: AG. 
Ch. Khadim Hussain Qaiser, Addl: AG.

For Govt of Sindh: Mr Yousaf Leghari, AG.

On Court’s Call: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Sr. ASC
Former Attorney General for Pakistan

Mr. Justice (retd) M. Riaz Kiani
Secretary Law & Justice. 

Dr. Riaz Mehmood, Sr. Joint Secretary. 
Syed Nasir Ali Shah, Solicitor General. 
Mr. M. Salman Faruqui, Principle Secretary to the President. 

Amicus Curiae: Mian Allah Nawaz, Sr. ASC. 
Mr. Shaiq Usmani Sr. ASC.
Mr. M. Sardar Khan, Sr. ASC. 

Assisted By Mr. Idrees Ashraf, Adv.

Dates of hearing: 07th -10th & 14th – 16th December, 2009.

O R D E R

Ifitkhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ – The above titled Constitution Petitions have been filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Constitution’] challenging the constitutionality of the National Reconciliation Ordinance (No.LX) 2007 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the NRO’], while HR cases and Civil Appeal, by leave of the Court, have been filed by the applicants/appellant for extension of benefit of the NRO to them.

2. Succinctly stating the facts, giving rise to instant proceedings, are that on 5th October, 2007, the President of Pakistan, in purported exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 89 of the Constitution, issued the NRO, whereby, certain amendments have been made in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 [hereinafter referred to as “the NAB Ordinance”]. By means of Section 2 of the NRO, Section 494 of Cr.P.C. has been amended. Likewise, vide Section 3 of the NRO, Section 39 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 has been amended. Similarly, Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the NRO amended Sections 18, 24 and 31A of the NAB Ordinance, respectively, whereas by means of Section 7 of the NRO, Section 33F has been inserted in the NAB Ordinance. 

3. The NRO came under challenge, as stated above, before this Court, through listed petitions. These petitions came up for hearing before the Court on 12th October, 2007 when after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court proceeded to issue notices to the respondents as well as to Attorney General for Pakistan, for a date in office after three weeks, while making the following observation:-

“However, we are inclined to observe in unambiguous terms that any benefit drawn or intended to be drawn by any of the public office holder shall be subject to the decision of the listed petitions and the beneficiary would not be entitled to claim any protection of the concluded action under Sections 6 and 7 of the impugned Ordinance, under any principle of law, if this Court conclude that the impugned Ordinance and particularly its these provisions are ultra vires the Constitution”. 

4. Pending decision of these petitions, on 3rd November, 2007, emergency was proclaimed in the country by the then President of Pakistan and also the Chief of Army Staff and under the garb of Provisional Constitution Order, 2007, Provisional Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 was issued, whereby, Article 270AAA was inserted in the Constitution, which provided protection to all the laws including the Ordinances in force on the day on which the Proclamation of Emergency of 3rd November 2007 was revoked. As a result of above constitutional amendment, the apparent interest was that the NRO should attain permanence. The Proclamation of Emergency as well as other extra-constitutional instruments were challenged before this Court in the case of Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan v. General Pervez Musharraf (PLD 2008 SC 178), when the Court declared the Proclamation of Emergency of 3rd November, 2007, the Provisional Constitution Order, 2007, Provisional Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007, the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007 and the President’s Order No.5 of 2007, to be validly enacted. However, this Court, vide its judgment dated 31st July 2009, in the case of Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2009 SC 879) declared all the above five instruments to be unconstitutional, illegal and void ab initio, as a result whereof Article 270AAA stood deleted from the Constitution. Consequently, the NRO, as well as 37 other Ordinances, which were meant to be protected, were shorn of the permanency purportedly provided under Article 270AAA of the Constitution and sanctified by the judgment passed in Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan’s case (ibid). However, through the same judgment, this Court, while supporting the doctrine of trichotomy of powers, as envisaged in the scheme of the Constitution and to prevent any disruption, enabled the Parliament to reconsider and, if thought fit, to enact, all the 37 Ordinances including the NRO, as Acts of Parliament. For this purpose the life of the Ordinances stood extended for another 120 days (in case of Federal Legislation) and 90 days (in case of Provincial Legislation). This constituted an opportunity to the democratic Government at the Centre and in the Provinces to legitimize the acts, actions, proceedings and orders, initiated, taken or done, under those Ordinances, by placing them before the Parliament, to make them enactments of Parliament, with retrospective effect.

5. In pursuance of above judgment of 31st July, 2009, the NRO was placed before the Standing Committee of the National Assembly on Law & Justice, in its meeting held on 29th & 30th October, 2009. During the discussions and deliberations, some of the members did not agree with the decision of the Committee and left the proceedings in protest. However, ultimately, on 2nd November, 2009 the Committee recommended that, after the proposed amendments in the Bill for enacting the NRO, the same may be passed by the Assembly. It is pertinent to mention here that despite finalisation of the report of the Standing Committee on NRO and before its approval by the Chairperson of the Committee, the Minister concerned withdrew the Bill under Rule 139 of Procedure & Conduct of Business in the National Assembly, 2007. As a result, the NRO could not be passed by the Parliament, within its extended life, therefore, it lapsed.

6. The petitioners in these Constitution Petitions have challenged the vires of the NRO with the prayer that the same may be declared ultra vires the Constitution, viod ab initio and of no legal effect. For convenience, the prayer made in Constitution Petition No. 76 of 2007, filed by Dr. Mubashir Hassan, is reproduced herein below:- 

“1) Section 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the NRO may kindly be declared to be void ab initio, of no legal effect and ultra vires the Constitution, in particular Articles 25, 62, 63 and 175 thereof.

2) During the pendency of the instant petition, the respondents may kindly be restraint from taking any action under or in terms of the impugned Ordinance. The respondents may in particular, be restrained from withdrawing any request for mutual assistance and civil party, letters rogatory and like issued to any Foreign Government, Court or other Authority or Multilateral Organization.

3) Any other order deemed beneficial to the interest of Justice and equity, may also kindly be made. 

7. The instant petitions came up for hearing before this Bench on 

7th December 2009, when Mr. Shah Khawar, Acting Attorney General for Pakistan, placed on record a written statement on behalf of Federation of Pakistan. Relevant paras therefrom are reproduced herein below:-

“2. That the Federation believes in supremacy of the Constitution of 1973 and the Parliament. 

3. That the National Reconciliation Ordinance, 2007 was promulgated by the previous regime and I am under instruction not to defend it.”

8. Mr. Kamal Azfar, learned Sr. ASC appearing on behalf of the Federation of Pakistan, through Ministry of Law & Justice, filed Civil Misc. Applications No. 4875 & 4898 of 2009 in Constitution Petitions No. 76 & 77 of 2007. Contents of paras at page 11 & 12 of the said applications are reproduced herein below:-

“If however, this Hon’ble Court wishes to rule upon wider issues other than those raised in the petition and prayer the Federation requests that fresh petitions be filed precisely stipulating these issues whereupon the Federation will seek instructions on such new petition. 

Pak Today is poised at the cross roads. One road leads to truly federal democratic welfare sate with the balance of power between an Independent judiciary, a duly elected Govt. representing the will of the people a determined executive, which is fighting the war against terrorism and poverty. The second road leads to destabilisation of the rule of law. The people of Pakistan await your verdict.”

When we confronted the learned counsel with above contents of his applications, he requested that the same may be treated as deleted. In this behalf, he, however, filed a written statement, contents whereof are reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

“STATEMENT

In Compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan to appraise the Hon’ble Court as to how the Federation would interpret the wording “the second road leads to the destabilization of the rule of law”, it is submitted as follows:-

(1) There is no mention of the wording ‘threat to democracy’ in the Statement.

(2) The Federation supports the Prosecution, in accordance with law, of persons alleged to have done wrongdoing. The Federation does not oppose the Petitions seeking a declaration that the National Reconciliation Ordinance 2007 (NRO) is illegal and unconstitutional.

(3) With regard to the “wider issues” mentioned in paragraph No.9 these refer to those matters which were raised by the Petitioner’s counsel during oral arguments and which find no mention whatsoever in the Petitions. For example, submissions made in respect of Articles 89 (in particular the alleged concept of “implied Resolution”) and A.264 on the effect of Repeal.

(4) The Federation’s view is that those who have benefited under the NRO should be proceeded against under the appropriate laws before the courts having the competent jurisdiction. As factual matters need to be determined by the trial courts.

(5) So far as my comments made yesterday before this Hon’ble Court concerning the threat from GHQ, the CIA and the contents of paragraph 9 of the CMA are concerned these were my personal views and were not made on the instructions of the Federation of Pakistan. As such I withdraw the same, which should not be considered by this Hon’ble Court in any manner whatsoever and the same should be deleted and expunged from the record.

(6) It is emphasized that the Federation of Pakistan holds this Hon’ble Court in the highest esteem and has the greatest respect for the same.”

9. Learned Advocates General of Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and Balochistan appeared and supported the stance taken by the Attorney General for Pakistan. 

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the material placed on record in support of their submissions. 

11. As it has been noted above that challenge to NRO was thrown by the petitioners, no sooner same was promulgated by the President and admission order dated 12th October, 2007, was passed, to examine following questions:-

“2. Mr. Salman Akram Raja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in Constitution Petition No. 76 of 2007 argued that:

a) Section 7 of the impugned Ordinance being self-executory in nature amounts to legislative judgment, which is impermissible intrusion into the exercise of judicial powers of the State and thus falls foul of Article 175 of the Constitution which envisages separation and independence of the judiciary from other organs of the State. 

b) Legislative judgment cannot be enacted by the Parliament. [ Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (AIR 1975 SC 2299)].

c) By promulgating Section 7 of the impugned Ordinance, Article 63(1)(h) and 63(1)(l) of the Constitution have been made ineffective, as regards chosen category of people, therefore, it is ultra vires the Constitution as it amounts to defeat the constitutional mandates.

d) Impugned Ordinance exhorts about or indemnifies a particular class of people i.e. public office holders from proceedings, actions and orders passed by the competent authorities, whereas no such powers are available to the Parliament or, for that matter, to the President of Pakistan under Federal or Concurrent Legislative List. Further; the President is empowered only to pardon an accused person, under Article 45 of the Constitution, after passing of sentence by a Court of law, whereas by means of impugned Ordinance, the President has been empowered to indemnify or pardon an accused, against whom proceedings are pending before Investigating Agency or a Court of law or in appeal by giving a blanket cover. 

e) The impugned Ordinance violates the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution because it is not based on intelligible differentia, relatable to lawful objects, therefore, deserves to be struck down. 

f) The impugned Ordinance is against the public policy because it also provides protection against future action in terms of its Section 7 and it had also rendered Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution ineffective. 

g) Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 494 of Cr.P.C. added by means of impugned Ordinance are contrary to provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 494 of Cr.P.C. where it has been provided that cases can only be withdrawn with the consent of the Court, whereas, in newly added Sub-Sections, powers of the “Court” have been conferred upon the Review Boards of the Executive Bodies, therefore, these Sub-sections are also contrary to Article 175 of the Constitution. 

and

No criteria has been laid down as to why the cases falling between the 1st day of January 1986 to 12th day of October 1999 have been covered under these provisions, inasmuch as definition of political victimization has not been provided in these Sub-sections, as a result whereof it has been left at the subjective consideration of Review Board/ Executive Bodies to determine the same. Thus such provisions cannot exist in any manner.

h) The impugned Ordinance has been promulgated in colorable exercise of Legislative powers and its various provisions have created discrimination among ordinary and classified accused, therefore, all these provisions tantamount to malice in law.

i) The provisions of impugned Ordinance are so overbroad that these have provided blanket cover to all the holders of public offices, including chosen representatives and ordinary employees, therefore, the object of national reconciliation cannot be achieved by allowing it to exist. 

j) The provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the impugned Ordinance are highly discriminatory in nature, therefore, are liable to be struck down. 

k) Section 6 of the impugned Ordinance is contrary to the basic principles relating to annulment of judgments, even if passed in absentia, in accordance with existing law, according to which unless the basis for the judgment, in favour of a party, is not removed, it could not affect the rights of the parties, in whose favour the same was passed but when the Legislature promulgated the impugned Ordinance, in order to remove the basis on which the judgment was founded, such judgment shall have no bearing on the cases. [Facto Belarus Tractor Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2005 SC 605)]. Hence, provisions of the impugned Ordinance as a whole are against the concept of equality of Islamic Injunction, provided under Article 2A of the Constitution, therefore, on this score as well, deserves to be struck down being ultra vires the Constitution. 

3. Mr. Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry, learned Sr. ASC for petitioner in Constitution Petition No. 77 of 2007, while adopting the above arguments, added 

that:-

i) The impugned Ordinance is purpose specific and period specific, therefore, violates Article 25 of the Constitution. 

4. Dr. Farooq Hassan, Sr. ASC appearing in Constitution Petition No. 78 of 2007 on behalf of petitioner, while adopted the arguments raised by Mr. Suleman Ahmed Raja, ASC contended that:-

i) The impugned Ordinance is contradictory to and violative of the United Nation’s Convention Against Corruption, enacted in 2005 and ratified by Pakistan on 31st of August 2007.

ii) Under the Constitution, no indemnity or amnesty can at all be given to any one, except granting pardon in terms of Article 45 of the Constitution. 

iii) Sections 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the impugned Ordinance are violative of the doctrine of trichotomy of powers. 

iv) The impugned Ordinance has in fact changed the basic structure of the Constitution.

v) The impugned Ordinance has also violated the principles of political justice and fundamental rights because it allows plundering of national wealth and to get away with it. More so, it tried to condone dishonesty of magnitude, which is unconscientious and shocking to the conscience of mankind.

5. Mr. M.A. Zaidi, AOR appeared on behalf of Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC in Constitution Petition No.79 of 2007 and adopted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 

6. Mr. Tariq Asad, ASC appearing in Constitution Petition No. 80 of 2007 also adopted the above arguments, while adding that:-

a) The impugned Ordinance has been promulgated on the basis of personal satisfaction of the President of Pakistan but for extraneous reasons and to provide indemnity/immunity to the public office holders, therefore, is liable to be struck down. 

12. Subsequent thereto cases remained pending except when their hearing was fixed on 27th February, 2008 and order dated 12th October, 2007, was vacated in following terms : -

3. These Constitution Petitions are adjourned to a date in office due to indisposition of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Meanwhile, in view of the rule laid down in the case of Federation of Pakistan vs. Aitzaz Ahsan (PLD 1989 SC 61), the observations made by this Court in Para 8 of the order dated 12.10.2007 in Constitution Petitions No.76-80 of 2007 to the effect that “however, we are inclined to observe in unambiguous terms that any benefit drawn or intended to be drawn by any of the public office holder shall be subject to the decision of the listed petitions and the beneficiary would not be entitled to claim any protection of the concluded action under Sections 6 and 7 of the impugned Ordinance, under any principle of law, if this Court conclude that the impugned Ordinance and particularly its these provisions are ultra vires the Constitution” are deleted. Resultantly, the Ordinance shall hold the field and shall have its normal operation. The Courts and authorities concerned shall proceed further expeditiously in the light of the provisions of the Ordinance without being influenced by the pendency of these petitions.”

13. As it has been noted above that while deciding the case of Sindh High Court Bar Association (ibid), all the Ordinances which were not laid before the Parliament, on account of insertion of Article 270AAA in the Constitution, were shorn of permanency, therefore, the Parliament was asked to examine all such Ordinances within a period of 120 and 90 days, as the case may be, commencing from 31st July, 2009, when a 14 Member Bench announced judgment. The period so assigned by the Court expired on 28th November, 2009 but the NRO was taken back from the Parliament, leaving for this Court to examine its constitutionality in the cases listed above. It is a cardinal principle of jurisprudence that courts are not required to give decisions of cases in vacuum rather it has to consider facts as well, giving a cause to a person to approach Courts. The NRO gave benefits to a class of people, whose identification is not difficult to ascertain, namely accused persons, involved in criminal and corruption cases, during the period commencing from 1st January, 1986 to 12th October, 1999 and this classification has created a divide amongst ordinary citizens of Pakistan and a class of alleged criminals who statedly have committed crimes of murder, dacoity, rape, looting/plundering of money/resources of this nation. Therefore, prima facie, to understand the nature of such beneficiaries, Federal Government, Provincial Governments and the NAB were asked to provide details in this behalf. In response to such query the Government of Sindh through its Advocate General filed a large list of such like accused, who being charged for the cases of criminal nature, benefited from the NRO, which included heinous and minor crimes, as well. As far as the remaining Governments and the Federating Units are concerned, they categorically denied extension of benefits of the NRO to even a single accused in their respective jurisdictions. However, NAB has submitted a list containing names of 248 persons, who benefited from the NRO within and outside the country. A cursory perusal of this list suggests that barring the cases inside the country, huge benefit has been availed by some of the persons in the cases pending against them outside the country. At this stage it is to be noted that application of the NRO, beyond the territories of the country, is a question which requires consideration on jurisdictional plane of this Court as well. NAB has also provided a list of the persons, who were convicted in absentia under Section 31A of the NAB Ordinance. 

14. In depth examination of the NRO suggests that it has not been promulgated to provide reconciliation on national basis as this nation has seen reconciliation in 1973, when a Constituent Assembly gave the Constitution of 1973 to the nation, guaranteeing their fundamental rights, on the basis of equality and brotherhood, as a result whereof, the nation had proved its unity, whenever it faced a challenge to its sovereignty and existence. The representation of the people, in subsequent Legislative Assemblies, has upheld the provisions of 1973 Constitution, except for few occasions when they have made amendments under peculiar circumstances. However, salient features of the Constitution i.e. Independence of Judiciary, Federalism, Parliamentary form of Government blended with Islamic provisions, now have become integral part of the Constitution and no change in the basic features of the Constitution, is possible through amendment as it would be against the national reconciliation, evident in the promulgation of the Constitution of 1973, by a Legislative Assembly. Therefore, promulgation of the NRO seems to be against the national interest and its preamble is contrary to the substance embodied therein. Thus, it violates various provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, by means of instant short order, reasons of which shall be recorded later, we hold as follows:-

(i) that the NRO is declared to be an instrument void ab initio being ultra vires and violative of various constitutional provisions including Article Nos. 4, 8, 25, 62(f), 63(i)(p), 89, 175 and 227 of the Constitution;

(ii) that as a consequence of the said declaration, all steps taken, actions suffered, and all orders passed by whatever authority, any orders passed by the courts of law including the orders of discharge and acquittals recorded in favour of the accused persons, are also declared never to have existed in the eyes of law and resultantly of no legal effect;

(iii) that all cases in which the accused persons were either discharged or acquitted under Section 2 of the NRO or where proceedings pending against the holders of public office had got terminated in view of Section 7 thereof, a list of which cases has been furnished to this Court and any other such cases/proceedings which may not have been brought to the notice of this Court, shall stand revived and relegated to the status of pre-5th of October, 2007 position;

(iv) that all the concerned courts including the trial, the appellate and the revisional courts are ordered to summon the persons accused in such cases and then to proceed in the respective matters in accordance with law from the stage from where such proceedings had been brought to an end in pursuance of the above provisions of the NRO;

(v) that the Federal Government, all the Provincial Governments and all relevant and competent authorities including the Prosecutor General of NAB, the Special Prosecutors in various Accountability Courts, the Prosecutors General in the four Provinces and other officers or officials involved in the prosecution of criminal offenders are directed to offer every possible assistance required by the competent courts in the said connection; 

(vi) that similarly all cases which were under investigation or pending enquiries and which had either been withdrawn or where the investigations or enquiries had been terminated on account of the NRO shall also stand revived and the relevant and competent authorities shall proceed in the said matters in accordance with law;

(vii) that it may be clarified that any judgment, conviction or sentence recorded under section 31-A of the NAB Ordinance shall hold the field subject to law and since the NRO stands declared as void ab initio, therefore, any benefit derived by any person in pursuance of Section 6 thereof is also declared never to have legally accrued to any such person and consequently of no legal effect;

(viii) that since in view of the provisions of Article 100(3) of the Constitution, the Attorney General for Pakistan could not have suffered any act not assigned to him by the Federal Government or not authorized by the said Government and since no order or authority had been shown to us under which the then learned Attorney General namely Malik Muhammad Qayyum had been authorized to address communications to various authorities/courts in foreign countries including Switzerland, therefore, such communications addressed by him withdrawing the requests for Mutual Legal Assistance or abandoning the status of a Civil Party in such proceedings abroad or which had culminated in the termination of proceedings before the competent fora in Switzerland or other countries or in abandonment of the claim of the Government of Pakistan to huge amounts of allegedly laundered moneys, are declared to be unauthorized, unconstitutional and illegal acts of the said Malik Muhammad Qayyum;

(ix) that since the NRO stands declared void ab initio, therefore, any actions taken or suffered under the said law are also non est in law and since the communications addressed by Malik Muhammad Qayyum to various foreign fora/authorities/courts withdrawing the requests earlier made by the Government of Pakistan for Mutual Legal Assistance; surrendering the status of Civil Party; abandoning the claims to the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries including Switzerland, have also been declared by us to be unauthorized and illegal communications and consequently of no legal effect, therefore, it is declared that the initial requests for Mutual Legal Assistance; securing the status of Civil Party and the claims lodged to the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries including Switzerland are declared never to have been withdrawn. Therefore the Federal Government and other concerned authorities are ordered to take immediate steps to seek revival of the said requests, claims and status;

(x) that in view of the above noticed conduct of Malik Muhammad Qayyum, the then learned Attorney General for Pakistan in addressing unauthorized communications which had resulted in unlawful abandonment of claims of the Government of Pakistan, inter alia, to huge amounts of the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries including Switzerland, the Federal Government and all other competent authorities are directed to proceed against the said Malik Muhammad Qayyum in accordance with law in the said connection;

(xi) that we place on record our displeasure about the conduct and lack of proper and honest assistance and cooperation on the part of the Chairman of the NAB, the Prosecutor General of the NAB and of the Additional Prosecutor General of the NAB, namely, Mr. Abdul Baseer Qureshi in this case. Consequently, it is not possible for us to trust them with proper and diligent pursuit of the cases falling within their respective spheres of operation. It is therefore, suggested that the Federal Government may make fresh appointments against the said posts of persons possessing high degree of competence and impeccable integrity in terms of Section 6 of the NAB Ordinance as also in terms of the observations of this Court made in the case of Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2001 SC 607). However, till such fresh appointments are so made, the present incumbents may continue to discharge their obligations strictly in accordance with law. They shall, however, transmit periodical reports of the actions taken by them to the Monitoring Cell of this Court which is being established through the succeeding parts of this judgment;

(xii) that a Monitoring Cell shall be established in the Supreme Court of Pakistan comprising of the Chief Justice of Pakistan or a Judge of the Supreme Court to be nominated by him to monitor the progress and the proceedings in the above noticed and other cases under the NAB Ordinance. Likewise similar Monitoring Cells shall be set up in the High Courts of all the Provinces comprising of the Chief Justice of the respective Province or Judges of the concerned High Courts to be nominated by them to monitor the progress and the proceedings in cases in which the accused persons had been acquitted or discharged under Section 2 of the NRO;

(xiii) that the Secretary of the Law Division, Government of Pakistan, is directed to take immediate steps to increase the number of Accountability Courts to ensure expeditious disposal of cases;

15. We place on record our deep sense of appreciation for the learned counsel for the parties as also for the learned amicii curiae who have rendered invaluable assistance to us in these matters.

The petitions stand allowed and disposed of by this short order in terms noted above.

Chief Justice. 

Judge (1) Judge (2) Judge (3) 
Judge (4) Judge (5) Judge (6)
Judge (7) Judge (8) 
Judge (10) Judge (11) Judge (12) Judge (13)
Judge (14) 
Judge (15) 
Judge (16) 
Judge (17)

Islamabad
16.12.2009

Concluded

 

 
No Comments

Posted in Research n Record

 

It’s all about Constitution Marvi, Keep Bias aside! (An analysis of Marvi’s Article)

18 Feb

This Note was posted on my Facebook page by Mr. Noman Shabbir. I'm posting it here as received, with no amendments, respecting his right to express opinion. I would be, however, happy to respond to the important points raised by him, for it is important to generate an environment of healthy dialogue in our society. I thank Mr. Shabeer for writing this.

 

Note: that I Wrote this Note yesterday but could not post due to some net issues! But as the matter is of serious nature and Marvi Sarmad Tried to Mislead People of less interest in governmental or Judicial Matter thats why I thought it to be necessary to post it today when Prime Minister has acted according to the points Presented in this note and Expressed by all Experts of Constitution!

 

lines in inverted commas are of Marvi.

 

 

“There is a judicial crisis, the media says. This claim seems to be correct if one realizes the level of urgency the Supreme Court showed in responding to a presidential notification.”

 

Showing urgency is not, by any means, against the law of land of Pakistan! Neither it makes any action of Supreme Court Suspicious. The objection that the Supreme Court had acted in an unjust and objectionable haste and manner, to say the least, is capricious and without any substance. Like the top executives of the government such as the president house, the Prime Minister house, the Supreme Court also does not have fixed working hours. It is at the discretion of the chief justice to resume working and start hearing of cases and pass orders at any time as may be considered by the court as just and appropriate, in the circumstances of each case. The honorable Supreme Court has held hearing of cases many times, even in late hours of the evening and announced their orders late at night. Just to remind you that the same supreme court, Headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Denounced/Invoked the proclamation of Emergency of November 3. Soon after the imposition of Emergency.

 


“Those having objections to the President’s notification say it violated Article 177 of the Constitution. The Said Article provides for a consultation with the Chief Justice (CJ) of the Supreme Court prior to making such appointments, but it does not give a Definition of the “consultation”.”

 

Sorry, President (Especially this president) knows the meaning of Consultation because he has already appointed twelve judges in lahor high court in 2009, The judges are Namely Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Najam ul Hassan, Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Asad Munir, Ijaz ul Ahsan, Hafiz Abdul Rehman Ansari, Tariq Javaid, all Advocates Lahore and Sardar Tariq Masood and Nasir Saeed Sheikh, Advocates Rawalpindi, and District & Sessions Judges Mansoor Akbar Kokab, Imtiaz Ahmad and Sagheer Ahmad Qadri. So stop borrowing bogus reasoning from presidential camp and start to run your own Brain!
 

 


“It is also true that the CJ Supreme Court sent a summary to the president who subsequently rejected it and sent it back. The allegation of “not consulting the CJ” thus becomes irrelevant”

 

First you yourself accepted that it is not clear from the article 177 that what Consultation is and here you have decided that “rejection” of CJ’s recommendation is “Consultation” what a dubious Example of Reasoning!

 


“Article 177 does not make the CJ’s recommendation binding on the president.”

 

Once again this shows your sheer ignorance towards constitution, Judiciary and Its rulings. Let me explain you the article and related ruling of Supreme Court in this regard!

First of all you or I are not an authority to tell what article 177 is. It’s the right of Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. A perusal of the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the famous cases decided by the honorable Supreme Court, confirm beyond any doubt that consent of chief justices concerned for appointment of new judges or elevation from high court to the Supreme Court is mandatory under Article 260 of the Constitution in its present shape, and also on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the famous Judges’ Case (PLD 1996 SC 324). It may also be noted if the president disagrees with the recommendations of the chief justices concerned, then he is obliged to give very sound reasons having substance for reconsideration of the recommendations by the chief justices.



“Interestingly, elevating a judge of a lower court to the apex court and Appointing the next senior judge as acting chief justice of the lower court does not seem to either derail democracy or attack on the independence of the judiciary. It rather seems to be quite in accordance with the principle of Seniority set by the Supreme Court in 1996 (Al-Jihad Trust Case).”

 

If president doesn’t consult with Chief Justice of Supreme court of Pakistan then by doing this he is committing an act of High treason by violating the article 177 of Constitution of Pakistan. It is also abundantly clear the requirement of the senior most judge fit is only mandatory for appointment as the chief justice and not for elevation of any judge of a high court to the Supreme Court as was repeatedly confirmed, inter alia, in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association vs. the Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2002 SC 939), where it is held “principles of seniority and legitimate expectancy neither apply nor can be expected to judges of the Supreme Court, and that no constitutional convention or past practice exists to appoint more senior judge of a high court as a judge of the Supreme Court…” Hence the plea in support of the notification that Mr. Justice Khwaja Muhammad Sharif, being the senior most judge of the Lahore High Court, could only be elevated to the Supreme Court is without any substance, and untenable in the light of the provisions of the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court.

 

“Justice Khwaja Sharif, whose elevation is in question, is a former member of a city council from Muslim League (now PML — N) and a family friend of the Sharifs, which makes it easier for the Sharif brothers to rule Punjab comfortably compared to a situation where a non-partisan judge becomes the Chief Justice of LHC.”

 

These lines completely exposes your mentality, Bias towards free and fair judiciary and Alignment towards PPP. I will raise a lot of Questions here,

 

Once again it’s not against the law of land of Pakistan that a counselor can’t become a judge! Verdicts are on Merit, if they are against merit then go supreme judicial counsel and get him removed! The same Judge Namely “Justice Khawaja Sharif took suo moto on lala zar case against Shahbaz Sharif” so you once again this shows your ignorance!


“What irks an objective mind is why the Supreme Court is making the Presidential decision a point of friction?”

And why the president is hell bent on Going against the Constitution? Last but not least, the people of Pakistan, who have been the ultimate casualty in every crisis induced by the interests of a few, have to think “objectively. For once, we all need to refuse to play in the hands of those who are pursuing nothing but their own vested interests. Many of us might have an opinion against the policies or persons of either Mr. Zardari or Mr. Sharif, but we have to keep our sanity intact and let reason prevail”

Agreed!

“Justice Khwaja or no Justice Khwaja, the Constitution and the spirit of democracy should be considered supreme.”

 

In democracy where constitution is written Sprit of Democracy means nothing. For example it will also become a matter of Frictions that what the Sprit of democracy is! Whatever is in constitution has to be obeyed by all President or judiciary or Parliament. Don’t forget that Constitution is supreme!

P.S.
 

Here are some of the Reasons why the president was hell bent to elevate the above said judges to supreme court (clippings from Iqbal Haiders article, A Supreme court lawyer and former Minister of Law and Attorney General in The government of PPP).

 

In view of such a categorical constitutional position as explained above, the question arises then why did the president choose to issue the two notifications. I discard the possibility of incompetence of the legal advisers. I cannot accept the assumption that all of the bigwigs of the president were not well-versed with the Constitution or the decisions by the Supreme Court. The real reason and answer lies in Article 206(2) of the Constitution, which clearly provides “A judge of a high court who does not accept appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court shall be deemed to retire from his office…” In the not so distant past, we find a precedent on this issue. Mr. Justice Amirul Mulk Mengal, who was the chief justice of Balochistan High Court in 1998, had refused to accept his elevation to the Supreme Court. Hence, he retired prematurely.

 

This eventuality was very much expected by the coterie of advisers of the president who had drawn a “win-win strategy”. The condemnation and opposition to their notifications was very much expected by them. They had also envisaged the likelihood of the two judges concerned not accepting appointments conferred by the notifications. Hence, for the president there could not have been a better situation as the two judges upon not accepting their appointments would have retired prematurely. As a result of which, the president would have availed the opportunity of appointing judges of his choice, in their place. It was for this reason alone that the oath-taking ceremony of Justice Mian Saqib Nisar as acting chief justice of the Lahore High Court was simultaneously announced on Sunday morning and reportedly the governor had also returned the earlier summary sent by Chief Justice Khwaja Muhammad Sharif for appointment of the judges. This was done to confirm without any delay if the two judges are accepting their appointment or not.

 

On the other hand, had the two judges accepted the appointment the president would still be very happy, as it would have amounted to acceptance by the superior judiciary that the president has the power to reject recommendations of the chief justice of Pakistan. Such acceptance of appointments by the two judges would have established at least a precedent, howsoever it maybe in clear violation of the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court in famous cases, on this issue.

 

As expected, the two honorable judges in question rightly did not accept the appointments mentioned in the two notifications. They would have been treated as retired prematurely had the honorable chief justice and his peers available in Islamabad not rightly suspended operations of the notifications. Perhaps this prompt intervention by the honorable chief justice and the forthwith suspension of the notifications by a bench of the Supreme Court was not envisaged in the strategy framed by the legal wizards in the president house.

 
1 Comment

Posted in Readings

 

Let reason Prevail

16 Feb



Marvi SirmedThis column was published in Daily Times on Feb 16, 2010


A section of the media is putting the credibility of the entire media at risk by siding blindly with the political interests of one political party. Chasing small-term superficial benefits and satisfying the fragile egos of a few anchorpersons is going to curtail the freedom of the media at the hands of the media itself

There is a judicial crisis, the media says. This claim seems to be correct if one realises the level of urgency the Supreme Court showed in responding to a presidential notification. This notification was nothing bigger than the elevation of the senior-most judge of the Lahore High Court (LHC) to the Supreme Court and the subsequent appointment of the second senior judge as the Acting Chief Justice of the LHC. Those having objections to the president’s notification say it violated Article 177 of the Constitution. The said Article provides for a consultation with the Chief Justice (CJ) of the Supreme Court prior to making such appointments, but it does not give a definition of the “consultation”. It is also true that the CJ Supreme Court sent a summary to the president who subsequently rejected it and sent it back. The allegation of “not consulting the CJ” thus becomes irrelevant. Article 177 does not make the CJ’s recommendation binding on the president.


Interestingly, elevating a judge of a lower court to the apex court and appointing the next senior judge as acting chief justice of the lower court does not seem to either derail democracy or attack on the independence of the judiciary. It rather seems to be quite in accordance with the principle of seniority set by the Supreme Court in 1996 (Al-Jihad Trust Case). However, it is noteworthy that a five-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by the then Chief Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad and including the controversial Justice Hameed Dogar, set aside the seniority principle in the Appointment of Judges Case in 2002. Insisting on following this judgement made under the dictatorial regime is going to raise questions on the independent judiciary.


The technical side of the whole issue aside, there is an ugly political side to it as well, which amply puts everything in perspective. Justice Khwaja Sharif, whose elevation is in question, is a former member of a city council from Muslim League (now PML — N) and a family friend of the Sharifs, which makes it easier for the Sharif brothers to rule Punjab comfortably compared to a situation where a non-partisan judge becomes the Chief Justice of LHC. In order to secure their undisturbed political future, the Sharif brothers are understandably leaving no stone unturned to keep Justice Khwaja Sharif in as the CJ of the LHC.


What irks an objective mind is why the Supreme Court is making the presidential decision a point of friction? Sections of the media, in connivance with the PML-N, are doing no good to democracy by insisting on something as visibly partisan as his demand to keep Justice Khwaja Sharif in the LHC. In a well-attended press conference in Islamabad, Mian Nawaz Sharif termed the presidential notification an attack on the judiciary, and the president himself as the biggest threat to democracy. Both these statements make him appear a political pygmy, as he could not answer one simple question: how will keeping Justice Khwaja Sharif in the LHC ensure democracy and the independence of the judiciary? Not that this question was put to him in the press conference, which appeared like an internal meeting of the PML-N.


In all this tumult, we are forgetting what is at stake. A section of the media is putting the credibility of the entire media at risk by siding blindly with the political interests of one political party. Chasing small-term superficial benefits and satisfying the fragile egos of a few anchorpersons is going to curtail the freedom of the media at the hands of the media itself. Freedom is not necessarily attacked only through curbs by the government. Rather, the media itself has to ensure that one actor of the political arena does not exploit the media for its own selfish political interests. Freedom of the media does not rest in freedom to use strong abusive words against someone. It rather rests in the freedom to report the facts. If the media restrains itself from reporting the facts and continues with an opinionated and partisan media trial of anybody who fails to offer a competitive benefits package, it surely is going to erode not only the media’s credibility in the eyes of the people, but will rob it of its own freedom.


The second casualty of this unrealistic and false hype about a concocted ‘judicial crisis’ would be the judiciary. It is quite sad to see the judiciary endangering its own independence by insisting on something that could best be described as its tilt towards those who marched for Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s restoration. Also, putting aside the principle of seniority following the judgement under a dictator’s regime would set a tradition not very different from the infamous doctrine of necessity, which everyone thought has been buried forever. Lamentable, also, is the fact that the judiciary has already invoked the controversial clauses of the Constitution introduced by another dictator in a recent case against the NRO. It is sheer disappointment for the progressive sections of society who sided with the CJ for his restoration all through the months of struggle.


This is the point to ponder for Mian Nawaz Sharif too, who has announced in his press conference on Sunday that his party will take to the streets if Justice Khwaja is elevated to the Supreme Court. Despite frequently violating the Charter of Democracy (CoD) on many counts, he keeps trumpeting about the continuation of democracy and upholding the independence of the judiciary. Advocating the appointment of a Supreme Court judge on one person’s choice rather than following the constitutional procedure of appointment by the president, Mian Nawaz Sharif is once again making himself hostage to the 1990s’ frictional politics.


Last but not least, the people of Pakistan, who have been the ultimate casualty in every crisis induced by the interests of a few, have to think objectively. For once, we all need to refuse to play in the hands of those who are pursuing nothing but their own vested interests. Many of us might have an opinion against the policies or persons of either Mr Zardari or Mr Sharif, but we have to keep our sanity intact and let reason prevail. Justice Khwaja or no Justice Khwaja, the Constitution and the spirit of democracy should be considered supreme.


 
1 Comment

Posted in Writings

 

Presidential Notification was Constitutional, But. . . .

14 Feb

Honourable Justice (R) Fakhruddin G. Ebraheem writes about the current judicial crisis developed after the late night suspension of presidential notification by the Chief Justice of pakistan

We are again faced with a judicial crisis – not a bonafide crisis but a crisis created for ulterior reasons. Ostensibly the crisis is the elevation of chief justice for the Lahore High Court in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the elevation of the next senior most judge Justice Saquib Nasir, as acting Chief Justice of Lahroe High Court (a la Zia ul Haq style).

 

Being of the view that more harm is done by ignoring seniority, which opens the door for exercise of discretion in principle, I am against seniority being ignored, particularly in judiciary. My first reaction, therefore, was that the appointment of Chief Justice Lahore High Court to the Supreme Court and elevation of the next senior-most judge as Lahore High Court Chief Justice was justified. I had assumed that in accordance with the Article 177 of the constitution, these appointments were made by the president after consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan, and that the president was bound by such consultations. Was the Chief Justice of Pakistan even consulted? We are in such a sorry state of affairs where there is a denial whether such a consultation took place between the two highest functionaries of state. The president’s spokesperson asserts that the consultation took place and is denied vehemently by the honorable Chief Justice of Pakistan. There must be some documentary evidence to prove that such consultations took place. But much to our regret the people have been kept in the dark creating further controversy. With a poor credibility score of the government, the latter’s version will not be acceptable to the people. Without consultation, these appointments, in contradiction to the binding recommendations of the Chief Justice of Pakistan remain invalid, being in violation of Article 177 of the Constitution. To my mind, this issue, which is so obvious and cannot possibly become controversial, has a reason for other reason, namely, the appointment of judges in the High Courts. There are a large number of vacancies in all the High Courts which need to be filled on an urgent basis, in the interest of litigant public. There can be no controversy over the appointment of these judges.

 

The government has, without cogent reason, evaded the issue of these appointments. The procedure for the appointment of judges is clear cut. The Chief Justice of the High Court, in order to fill up vacancies, first consults with his colleagues and invites advocates and/or members of the lower judiciary, with a view to obtain their consent to become a judge. Even if there is one seat vacant, the Chief Justice of the High Court recommends two or three names which are forwarded to the provincial government. The limited function of the provincial government is to ascertain the antecedent of the candidate, and along with any adverse material, but without any deletions or additions of names, forwards the list to the Ministry of Law, which, with its comments, further forwards it to the Prime Minister. Then starts the process of consultation between the Chief Justice and the Prime Minister and if a candidate has the concurrence of both the Chief Justices (High Court and Supreme Court), such a person is elevated to become the judge of the High Court. It may be noticed that neither the President nor the Prime Minister has a right to add to, or subtract, from the list of proposed candidates. This is obviously correct for two reasons – firstly, the Chief Justices know better the competency of the candidate secondly, this appointment is for an initial period of one year, to enable the Chief Justices to ascertain the ability and integrity of the judge. I will repeat that a candidate whose appointment is confirmed by both the chief justices is binding on the government. In exceptional cases, the PM may give his reasons for his disagreement and the same may be reviewed by the chief justices. But the primacy remains with both the chief justices. To my mind, the immediate controversy regarding the notifications elevating Lahore High Court Chief Justice and his elevation to Supreme Court is directly related to the government’s reluctance to initiate the process of appointment of Lahore High Court’s judges nominated by its Chief Justice.

 

Our past history, in matters of appointment of judges, has been chequered for it is public knowledge that the Executive has, more often than not, been interested in appointment of judges of its own choice, which in fact, seriously affects the independence of judiciary for the largest single litigant before the courts is the government. We have fortunately evolved a procedure, which is not only fair and just, but, in public interest. In the four HCs large number of judges remain un-appointed for the last so many months only because of the undue obduracy and the expectation that the parliament will provide for another procedure for appointment of judges, to suit the executive. In my humble opinion, the whole controversy must be resolved without further delay by appointing the judges in the HC in accordance with the Constitution. In so far as the elevation of the judge from the LHC to fill up permanent position from Punjab in the SC is concerned, it should not be a pretext for delaying the appointments of judges to the Lahore High Court. We are urgently required in larger public interest for immediate appointments of judges as the litigants are suffering for no fault on their part. Justice (retd) Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim

 
8 Comments

Posted in Readings, Research n Record

 

Folly, not clash of institutions

30 Jan

By Ayaz Amir for The News, appeared on Friday Jan 29, 2010

Clash of institutions has a grand ring to it, suggestive of Cromwell's Roundheads battling the monarchy; or the children of the French Revolution slaughtering the French nobility; or Lenin's Bolsheviks storming the Winter Palace. 

 

Would that this were the state of affairs in Pakistan. We could then expect something creative, a higher synthesis, to emerge from all this disorder. But we are not that lucky. This is less clash of institutions than elephants on parade: large egos on the march, the vanity of mediocrity on display — dressed up, as Pakistani mediocrity mostly is, in the colours of national salvation. 

 

If Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is refusing to put a pistol to his head, if he is refusing to become another Farooq Leghari, and if the National Assembly (including the PML-N) is with him on the matter of not committing collective suicide, media samurais — of whom there are not a few and who deserve the title of Ustad-e-Fidayeen better than any Taliban — are dismayed, and almost on the verge of hysteria, because the triumph of prudence is the last thing they wish to celebrate. 

 

For six months and more these laptop warriors have been spreading confusion and alarm, conning a public which they take to be gullible into thinking that political change is around the corner. But their deadlines having not been met, not once but repeatedly, it is not surprising if there is an air of increasing desperation about their battle-cries, which they expect the public to take as serious analysis. If their frantic outpourings are serious analysis, comic relief acquires a different meaning. 

 

Two slogans have proved the most enduring in our history: Islam and corruption. Every humbug in authority, especially when besieged and short of real answers to our many problems, has raised the banner of Islam, none more loudly than Gen Ziaul Haq, who would be prince if ever there was a kingdom dedicated wholesale to the worship of hypocrisy. The more of a mess we have made of our Constitution the greater the reliance on Islamic references — not for acting upon them, perish the thought, as for the sacred rites of lip-service and window-dressing. 

 

To much the same use has been put the slogan of corruption. In every military coup, from Ayub to Musharraf, in every civilian coup, whether carried out by Ghulam Ishaq Khan or Farooq Leghari, the eradication of corruption has figured as the foremost priority. Ironic, then, is it not, that after every forced transition, every turn of the screw, the one thing to explode was corruption? So much for the good intentions, and so much for the heaven they led to. 

 

At present too the idea of change — that change is necessary if Pakistan is to survive — has been hyped up relentlessly around the theme of corruption. Foremost in this campaign, although keeping themselves well hidden in the shadows, have been the self-appointed guardians of our ideological frontiers. They may have been less than adept at guarding our geographical frontiers — the ones visible on a map — but the ramparts of ideology, in their own definition of this term, they continue to guard jealously.

 

. . . .  it is salutary to remember that the judges did not restore democracy. It was democracy which restored them. 

 

The laptop warriors may be doing their own thing, for in their ranks are to be found the odd knight of good faith genuinely taken in by all the talk about corruption, but the wrecking game they are embarked upon fits in neatly with the agenda of the ideological warriors who are just not comfortable with a civilian dispensation. 

 

Angels from heaven can descend tomorrow and minister to the needs of the Islamic Republic, but the ideological warriors and the definers of strategic depth — one and the same thing — won't be satisfied. Why do they suffer the Constitution? Why do they endure civilian trappings? If they are so impatient with democracy they should make Myanmar their model and once and for all have done with the charade of democracy. 

 

It is a measure of the success of the forces out to alter the political landscape that in just two years since the revival of democracy, they have managed to instil into the minds of the middle class — which for all its presumed sophistication is the first to fall for such gambits — that Pakistan's number one problem is corruption. If this bull is caught by the horns salvation is at hand. If not, the Republic faces ruin and destruction. 

 

The lawyers' movement did much good in that it helped weaken the foundations of dictatorship, although I must hasten to add that by itself it wasn't strong enough to defeat that dictatorship. That outcome had to await the fruition of the political process as signified by the holding of elections and the assumption of office by a political government. Even so, the lawyers' movement was an inspiring sight while it lasted. To a nation caught in the throes of depression it gave a glimpse of what resolve and sustained commitment could achieve. 

 

But there have been some negative effects too. One is the outbreak of a species of arrogance amongst lawyers finding vent in violent and yahoo behaviour. The frequency of such outbursts is serving to dim the shine of the lawyers' movement, the heroes of yesterday allowing themselves to be seen in a poor light. The second is the rise of a strange kind of innocence which seems to be divorced from any understanding of Pakistan's tempestuous past. 

 

This innocence finds expression in the belief that the movement and the subsequent restoration of the judges were turning points in our history. In this somewhat exalted view of things, the restored judges have been cast in heroic colours, indeed likened to prophets of a new dawn in which justice and the rule of law will always prevail. It was no doubt in a like spirit of exaltation that Justice Jawwad Khawaja in his added note to the detailed judgement of My Lord the Chief Justice in the NRO case stated that the last three years in their momentousness "… can be accorded the same historical significance as the events of 1947… and those of 1971…" 

 

Jinnah was the hero of 1947 and Yahya the anti-hero of 1971. While Musharraf can be made to run a close parallel to Yahya, whom should we take as the Jinnah of the last three years? In any event, this rendering of history can be faulted on another count. On our side of the divide, Jinnah was the sole architect of 1947. Lawyers and judges have not been the sole shapers of the outcome of the last three years. They played a part and often a heroic part in those events but not the sole part. 

 

And it is salutary to remember that the judges did not restore democracy. It was democracy which restored them. As we go on about a new dawn this sequence of events should not be forgotten. 

 

Furthermore, as laptop warriors foam at the mouth and serve up their beliefs and desires as news and analysis, faith that a new dawn is really at hand will be immeasurably strengthened if the guardians of justice take up two pressing challenges: (1) apologise in the clearest of terms, with a due sense of contrition, for the oath taken by them at the altar of Musharraf's PCO in 2000, and if some amongst their present lordships validated Musharraf's coup in the Zafar Ali Shah judgment, an apology for that too; and (2) take up instantly Air Marshal Asghar Khan's petition about the Mehran Bank scandal and the money distributed by the ISI in the 1990 elections. 

 

If there is any hesitation on both or either of these counts — and there can be very understandable reasons for exercising caution — would it be too much to ask that discretion be the better part of valour in other things as well? 

 

The inadequacy of the political class may be great and may be enough to drive one to despair. But if there is one lesson of our history it is that there is no alternative to democracy. It is within its fold and bosom that we must seek its reform and correction, and the salvation of the Pakistani nation. 

 
1 Comment

Posted in Readings

 

Pakistan: Zardari Falls, Kayani Rises

27 Dec

 

This article is written by C. Raja Mohan and was originally published in  Indian Express on December 18, 2009. Raja Mohan is Henry A Kissinger Chair in Foreign Policy and International Relations at the Library of Congress, Washington DC

Whether he quits or not, President Asif Ali Zardari has been so severely weakened that he no longer poses a threat to Pakistan's permanent establishment. In fact the Army Chief Ashfaq Kayani might prefer holding a de-fanged Zardari prisoner in Islamabad's presidential palace and run the country with the pliable Yousuf Raza Gilani as the Prime Minister.

Barely two years ago a discredited Army leadership under Gen. Pervez Musharraf was forced to compromise with the civilian political leaders. Now the Army is back as the arbiter of the nation's domestic politics amidst a civilian disarray.

Kayani may in fact be better placed than his predecessor Musharraf, who had all the disadvantages of being legally responsible for running the country. Kayani, in contrast, has all the effective power in without being accountable to any one.

In many ways Pakistan's story of the last three years has been about the rise and rise of Gen. Kayani. Three years ago, Musharraf seemed so firmly in control of Pakistan. But as the judicial crisis in Pakistan unfolded from March 2007, Musharraf was forced to shed his uniform and hand over the baton to Kayani.

Although he stayed on as President, the real power had passed from Musharraf to Kayani, who was the new chief of army staff. Within a few months, Kayani nudged Musharraf to quit as President and move on.

If Zardari, who was unanimously elected President of Pakistan, thought he was all powerful, Kayani showed who owns the remote in Pakistan. Last March, it was Kayani who forced Zardari to restore Ifthikar Chaudhry, who was ousted by Musharraf as Chief Justice.

Chaudhry and his Supreme Court have now declared null and void the political deal under which the Musharraf allowed the return of Benazir Bhutto and her husband Zardari to Pakistan and contest the elections which were to return the nation to civilian rule.

Benazir, it may be recalled was assassinated upon her return to Pakistan, and Zardari took charge of the People's Party and won the elections. It did not take long for the political wheel in Pakistan to turn the full circle.

Lahore's lawyers have surely won the point on the illegality of the Musharraf-Bhutto deal, which gave special protection to Benazir and her husband from the many previous charges of corruption. But they might be losing the larger struggle for establishing the civilian primacy over the military in Pakistan, as the nation's latest experiment with democracy begins to unravel.

 
No Comments

Posted in Readings

 

The Freely Political Judiciary and the NRO Fiasco

26 Dec

 

This article has been contributed for Baaghi, by Ahmad Nadeem Gehla. Baaghi is grateful to him for a brilliant analysis.

A dictator in military uniform does not become ‘constitutional head of state’ even after getting a verdict of ‘constitutionality’ from a handpicked judiciary and approval from a rubber stamp parliament. Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, clearly states that a dictator who abrogates constitution along with judges and the parliamentarians who assist him are all guilty of high treason. The institutions which assisted a dictator as well as acts carried, by default remains unconstitutional unless approved by a duly elected parliament. Even after approval from a legitimate parliament, these acts might not satisfy the constitutional demands and remain as ‘political arrangements’.

Present Chief Justice was the member of Bench which validated the unconstitutional martial of General Pervez Musharaf in judgment of Supreme Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah case. He subsequently was appointed as a Chief Justice by the same dictator.  Many of us participated in movement for restoration of Chief Justice and his reinstatement was a great landmark achieved by newborn civil society of Pakistan. Apart from the political success with his restoration as Chief Justice, his appointment as a judge of supreme Court when 11 judges refused to take oath under ‘Legal Frame Work Order (LFO)’ and subsequent oath as Chief Justice was and still remains unconstitutional, as he has yet not taken oath under constitution of Pakistan. His reinstatement at the best can be a ‘political arrangement’; it cannot be constitutional by any stretch of constitutional interpretation.

Liberal and left wing politicians in Pakistan have never been able to get justice from judiciary in Pakistan, especially when powerful military establishment remains on the opposite side. ‘Jihad Enterprise’ of notorious ‘mullah-military alliance’ closed doors for ousting dictator through political movement which  face the danger of being hijacked by religious extremist groups and turned in to civil war. We have witnessed that a dictator can stage a 12th May and suicide blasts as counter measures. The options available to politicians are of negotiations with dictators to finds a workable middle path for transition to democracy, end up in prisons without conclusion of trial by puppet judiciary or get deported and exiled.

Mian Nawaz Sharif’s return after eight years of exile from Saudi Arabia can serve as the best example of choices available to politicians. On his arrival, not a single of his supporters was able to break the security arrangements of police and reach airport to welcome their leader. His party leadership rushed to Supreme Court to get a ‘restraint order’ to prevent him being illegally deported.  He is the head of second biggest political party in country, even if he was an ordinary citizen, his detention and threat of deportation was an ‘urgent matter’ in legal terms, to be taken up by court.

Constitutional courts suspend procedures to take up such matters and there are precedents where judges passed orders on such issues in middle of night. Unfortunately the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Iftakhar Muhammad Chaudhary after being restored first time, gave it a deaf ear. Mian Nawaz Sharif remained under detention at airport for several hours and was illegally deported from his own country by a dictator. What was the remedy available to Mian Nawaz Sharif to come back once again?

National Reconciliation Ordinance was issued by dictator Pervez Musharaf and was purely a political arrangement to withdraw politically motivated cases and facilitate the return of exile leaders. Withdrawal of cases is a recognized practice around the world where any state transforms from dictatorship to democracy. However, such arrangements are recognized being the ‘middle path’ for transition towards democracy and conflict resolution. There can be nothing more absurd than judging the ‘constitutionality’ of a law signed and issued by a dictator in uniform. As the dictator, being a party in such arrangements himself does not enjoy any legitimacy, these arrangements could not satisfy the constitutional criteria.

The NRO expired month before Supreme Court took it up for a judicial review and was not available as a law, the actions taken under that law became covered by doctrine of ‘past and closed transactions’. Only in case, President had promulgated it again after first expiry of 120 days, or Parliament has passed it in to a law, it would have been open for a judicial review. However Supreme Court decided to give it a new life for another 120 days in disregard of constitution, through the order passed in the petitions on PCO of 2007 and sent it to parliament for considering and vote. The order of SC was a clear violation of constitution as no court including SC has power to extend the time for a law which has already been expired.

During lawyer’s movement, we did not grant the power of legislation to ‘Chief Justice’ otherwise we would have follower the appeal of lawyer leaders and boycotted the election. The voluntary and unconstitutional legislation by SC and later striking down its own created law is the only precedent in legal and constitutional history of civilized world. While doing so, judiciary acted as ‘Judicial Messiah’ giving life to dead laws and later judged its constitutionality. This violation is nothing short than any dictator’s violation of constitution.

We have witnessed the extreme of ‘judicial biases’ in present formation of the ‘Bench’ of Supreme Court. This is important to remember that a decision by full court of Supreme Court in cases directly filed under constitutional jurisdiction closes every door of appeal. Those aggrieved can only file their appeals before ‘divine court’ even if the judgment doesn’t meet the standards of law and constitution and is biased. If it was a case decided by a larger bench of a High Court or minority view of a bench of SC, it does make sense. Composing such a bench in order to close all doors for those who are aggrieved, especially when President of the country is focus of proceedings leaves little doubt about Supreme Court playing a ‘political game’.

More than 200 lawyers, political workers and civil society activists gave their blood in lawyer’s movement. Off course, we did not struggle for a ‘Messiah’ but an institution. Although an overwhelming majority supported the restoration of Chief Justice, they participated in elections in much greater number despite the appeal of ‘lawyer leaders’ to boycott the elections of 2007. The record turnout in elections is a clear verdict of people that they are not looking for a messiah but wanted to judge and choose their leaders.

Although judiciary around the world observes a self imposed restrain in interfering into ‘political issues’, the situation in Pakistan had been opposite. We are witnessing same thing happening once again while judiciary is busy interfering in to ‘political questions’, its own functioning has changed little even after so many sacrifices. Public perception about judiciary in ‘Transparency International’ report for 2009 has put judiciary at the seventh most corrupt institution of the country. The head of lawyer’s movement and former President of SC Bar Association has expressed his appointment stating that ‘this is not the judiciary for which we struggled’.

When judiciary or military interferes in to political issues, it puts the institution against the will of people and people do react when their will is not respected. There can be nothing more shameful for institution of judiciary that whoever it convicts by them become qualified for highest offices of the country. When a handpicked judge of Pervez Musharaf convicted Yousaf Raza Gillani, the former Speaker of National Assembly, Asif Ali Zardari, present in court told the judge, “You have made him qualify for President of Pakistan”. When Gillani, who served five years in prison while judges were dancing on tunes of Pervez Musharaf, became Prime Minister, he released these judges from detention of the same dictator.  

Let us take case of Mian Nawaz Sharif who was removed and put in prison by General Pervez Musharaf. Supreme Court, including Justice Iftakhar Muhammad Chaudhary, not only validated the Martial Law but gave dictator the powers to amend the constitution. The same judiciary convicted Mian Nawaz Sharif for hijacking and corruption. On his return, people gave their verdict by giving government of biggest province of country to the party of that ‘hijacker’ and he is one of most popular leader of the country. On his initiative parliament is set to remove the changes from constitution which were introduced by Pervez Musharaf with ‘permission’ of judges.

Judiciary partnered in murder of ZA Bhutto and one of the judges who signed the verdict has confessed that it was a ‘judicial murder’. The people turned the grave of a ‘murder convict’ Bhutto, in to a shrine. Million visit his grave every year giving him a verdict of innocence and add in to shame for judges and generals. Benazir Bhutto was charged of corruption and made to rush from one court to other for years while millions marched for her chanting ‘Ya Allah Ya Rasool – Benazir Bekasoor’. People turned her death in to their own loss and even his worst rivals cried on her death, her party secured the highest vote in next elections.

Almost every provision of criminal laws was used against Asif Ali Zardari from corruption to terrorism and murderer charges. He was dragged from one court to other for eleven years while ‘judges of dictator’ sat over the trials for over a decade keeping him in a continuous imprisonment. In the first free election people put the same corrupt, terrorist and murderer in Presidential Palace with a two third majority. Even in bye elections his ticket holders won from Gilgat to Quetta. Dr. Ayesha Siddiqua, one of the supporter of restoration movement has expressed that ‘judgment will strengthen the military establishment and undermine democracy and weaken President’.

 Despite observing the restraint from interfering in to a political arrangement, while declaring NRO as unconstitutional, judiciary has once again decided to reopen these cases even after same exercise in futility for a decade. Each of such interference has historically proved another blow to already deteriorating institution.  Amazingly, Supreme Court ignored to pass any order against the ‘judges’ who did not conclud cases against President Zardari for a decade just to please a dictator and got favors in return. Asima Jahangir, UN Reporter for Human Rights and top supporter of judiciary restoration movement has declared the judgment to be delivered by a ‘jirga’ rather than a court of law.

Judicial activism can be a blessing and every sane person will support if courts take up issues of public interest. Unfortunately in Pakistan the trend is reverse; courts interfere in to popular and political issues while matters of public interest are pushed under the carpet. The politicians have been always a soft target for ‘dispensation of justice’ while mighty generals and judges all remain holy cows. While politicians get ‘speedy justice’, the case filed by Air Marshal Asghar Khan against the generals for misuses of public funds to form notorious right wing alliance IJI is pending in Supreme Court for twelve year without a verdict. In Asima Jahangir’s words, the order is ‘targeted justice’.

Supreme Court also announced in it short order to ‘judge’ all politicians under controversial Article 227 of Constitution which was inserted by a dictator to disqualify the liberal politicians. The law requires all politicians to be ‘righteous’ and is under review of parliamentary committee for striking down the constitutional classes inserted by a dictator. The dangerous power acquired by Supreme Court will give it a right to disqualify political leaders who does not offer five time prayers regularly and does not fast. Qazi Hussain Ahmad, head of Pro Taliban JI has announced to ‘implement’ SC judgments through street power and SC has not taken any action on his statement.

Every dictatorship in Pakistan was imposed in name of ‘accountability’ and ‘good governance’ and proved to be another disaster.  People do react when someone pretending to be a ‘Messiah’, disregards their mandate and rejects their political decision. When people had a chance, they brought back the same leaders who were ousted by ‘Messiah’. This behavior is not limited to Pakistani society alone, people in India, Philippine, Thailand, Malaysia and Bangladesh has reacted in similar manner. Judiciary lead government grilled politicians for two years while people voted same politicians back in government.

Corruption is a reality in developing world and particularly in Pakistani society. It can never be eradicated in one day or by once again inviting a ‘Messiah for a quick fix’. The continuation of democratic process strengthens institution and as process takes course, it eradicates corruption. Whenever an institution or a person has crossed the constitutional boundaries, it has weakened the institutions and paved ways for dictatorship.  While Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, liberal and democratic forces are strongly criticizing the judgment, ‘Pro-Taliban’ religious groups are celebrating the verdict.

The top lawyer leader and head of ‘lawyer’s movement has declared the judgment as been delivered after watching the ‘Talk Shows’ of pro Taliban private media. Many legal experts, civil society activists and human rights advocates are terming the Supreme Court’s intervention in to political decisions as revival of notorious ‘mullah-military-judges alliance’, to undermine democracy. IA Rehman, the Director of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan wrote, “The people of Pakistan have every right to ask whether Ziaul Haq’s agenda has been revived”.

Apart from some revolutionary verses of Habib Jalib sung by ‘Lal Band’ during lawyer’s movement, the role of Supreme Court remains limited to constitutional boundaries. In democracy, only people can ‘judge’ their representative, any unconstitutional exercise will again fail. The Supreme Court was restored with sacrifices and is built on ‘people’s blood’ and bound to respect ‘people’s will’. If Supreme Court sides with establishment and derails democratic process in dreams of acquiring the powers of ‘Judicial Messiahs’, people who struggled for its restoration will surely hold it accountable.

 

 
3 Comments

Posted in Readings

 

Pause, Sirs, and Ponder

24 Dec

This article was written by Pakistan's finest analyst, Mr. I. A. Rehman, for Dawn, published on December 24, 2009

 

The fact that in its response to the Supreme Court judgment of Dec 16 the nation is divided cannot be denied, and prudence demands that the causes of this division should not be brushed aside without careful scrutiny.

A large section of society believes that Pakistan has become a corruption-free entity and a judicially controlled democracy while a none-too-small section feels deeply hurt. Much can be said for and against both sides.

The hailers are largely guided by their desire to wipe off the shame of becoming one of the most corrupt states in the world. They appear full of zeal for righteousness. However, they will do their cause enormous harm if they fall for the universally repudiated view that the ends always justify the means. The people of Pakistan paid a heavy price for taking this route when they welcomed the usurpation of power by Ayub Khan, Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf.

The wailers are largely moved by the apparent setback to their group. They think the law has been used for a political purpose. They have strong memories of the Tamizuddin and Nusrat Bhutto cases and the judgment against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. They could be wrong. However, they will do themselves enormous harm if they appear to be defending corrupt persons or practices.

Somewhere between the two extremes stand those who wish to make sure that good intentions do not lead to the dreaded hell. Some of them have a longer record of denouncing corrupt rulers and condemning the NRO than the born-yesterday anti-vice squad. They believe the NRO was a bad law, that it should not have been made, that no one claiming public support should have sought to benefit from it and that those who made this obnoxious law as well as its beneficiaries should pay for their lapses.

According to them the Supreme Court verdict has two parts: one dealing with the NRO, the other with broader themes. They have no quarrel with the first part. They only want to have their fears of the long-term implications of some of the assumptions underlying the court order duly and properly addressed.

The NRO was such an easy target that a single shot (Articles 4, 8 and 25 of the constitution) was enough to demolish it. A fusillade from heavy cannons (Articles 62 (f), 63 (i and p), 89, 175, and 227) has created problems.

The clauses of Articles 62 and 63 cited now constitute part of Ziaul Haq’s arbitrary amendments. They have never been debated by a representative assembly and have been consistently denounced by democratic opinion. It has often been said that the legislatures have not touched them. But this argument should be examined in the context of the circumstances in which the post-Zia assemblies have been elected and the conditions under which the democratic regimes have been allowed to function. Invoking Ziaul Haq’s interpolations in the 1973 constitution, whose revival in its original form is the battle cry of all democratic parties, is like quoting a PCO judge’s ruling before today’s independent judiciary.

Further, reference has again been made to the 'salient features of the constitution, i.e., independence of the judiciary, federalism, parliamentary form of government blended with Islamic provisions' and 'no change in the basic features of the constitution is possible through amendment'. The argument was last heard in May 2000 when 12 judges of the Supreme Court had not only upheld the Pervez Musharraf coup of October 1999 but also allowed him the power to amend the constitution.

Now, the debate over certain parts of a national constitution being outside parliament’s authority to amend them has been going on in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh for over 40 years (Indian Supreme Court verdicts of 1967, 1973 and 1975; Pakistan Supreme Court verdicts of 1963, 1997 and 2000). Professor Conrad, the German scholar who has done much to promote this principle, has succinctly put it thus: 'Any amending body organised within the statutory scheme, howsoever verbally unlimited its power, cannot by its very structure change the fundamental pillars supporting its constitutional authority.'

An essential question is: are courts the sole forum for determining the basic or fundamental or salient features of a constitution? In many countries (including Canada, Germany and India) the provisions that cannot be routinely amended by parliament are identified in the constitution itself. This is an issue that calls for a thorough debate.

In any case the issue before the Supreme Court was not an amendment to the constitution that would have attracted the basic features theory. The issue before it was an ordinary presidential ordinance. And for laws and ordinances that conflict with the constitution clear remedies are available.

By invoking Article 227 in the present case the Supreme Court seems to have put Islamic injunctions in command of the whole constitution. Quite a few lawyers argue that this amounts to overruling the court’s judgments in the Hakim Khan (1992) and Kaneez Fatima (1993) cases.

The position as far as a lay writer can understand is this: the power to strike down a law for being repugnant to Islamic injunctions lies with the Federal Shariat Court and no other court. Article 227 only allows the Council of Islamic Ideology to recommend changes in laws on the ground of repugnancy to Islam. The article does not empower any forum to strike down any law. When 17 judges of the highest court invest Article 227 with the power to nullify a law it could amount to constitution-making. It is necessary to dispel the fears that the courts could start striking down any law they consider violative of Islamic injunctions.

Besides, the matter is not one of law alone, it is essentially political. The 'salient features of the constitution' theory has no answer for conflicts between these features — between a parliamentary form of government and Islamic injunctions, for instance. And what will happen to the independence of the judiciary if one accepts the view propounded by many Islamic scholars that in an Islamic order the ameer is the head of all state organs — the executive, the legislature and the judiciary?

One cannot forget the case started by Mr Kaikaus, a former Supreme Court judge, in a Shariat appellate bench but which was dismissed by the Federal Shariat Court on a technical ground. He appealed to the bench but withdrew his plea because he did not think the judges on it were Muslims! Mr Kaikaus had branded the parliamentary form of government, the system of elections, and the existence of political parties as un-Islamic! Fears of many such cases coming up are not groundless. The people of Pakistan have every right to ask whether Ziaul Haq’s agenda has been revived.

 
No Comments

Posted in Readings

 

NROs, Honestly!

20 Dec

NRO collage

These are very interesting times in Pakistan. There are accusers, there are victims, there are spectators, there is a mediator, and there is a decider. All of them, not so clean. But all of them set against the victim for something all of them are the culprits – Corruption! The civil society mainly comprising educated urban middle class is taking a position relatively simplistic, but at higher grounds morally. The media is caught up in their own game, which is mainly catering their business interests and strongly rooted right wing elements within its ranks. Political parties are grasping the opportunity to depose present set up to take its place sooner than they had anticipated. The DECIDER is a bit vengeful, and a bit obliged to the right wingers for their support during former's bad days. So, the whole mesh can be deciphered in one sentence: the accusers are joined by the mediators and deciders to bridle the horses of the victim! This all being purely political, tends to catch on popular morality and sentiment of the have-nots. The spectators, thus, is rolling eyes on whatever is fed to them.

All this mess has translated into an embarrassing situation for those who are at slightly better footings to understand the designs of the infamous. In their bid to decipher the code of this political chess for the masses, they are generally being mistaken as pro-corrupt and favouring corruption. At the risk of being taken as defending them, I'm inclined to record here that all the respectable people who are expressing discontent over the recent NRO verdict, need to be heard for the sake of reason. Whereas the corruption remains a recognized scourge, which has not only almost dissolved the roots of good governance in the country, but has widened the gap between haves and have-nots to an un-bridgeable level. Fighting this malaise should be at the core of any package to deal with over all governance, efficient service delivery to the citizens and economic uplift. Without addressing corruption and misappropriation of public money, no reform agenda can be meaningful and would produce results. 

Having said that, let me also note here that corruption unfortunately, remains a common denominator among all the political and non-political actors. The army, the secret agencies, the lawyers, the judiciary, the political parties (including self righteous religious parties), the business class, the agricultural elite, the professionals including doctors and teachers (we have very high profile personalities from academia who are accused of plagiarism), civil bureaucracy, the society in general at all possible levels – corruption in all shapes, forms, intensities and quantities is there. Some say, this endemic is in our "ghutti" (very small dosage of edible, preferably honey, given to the new born as a tradition in sub continent, thought to have lasting effect on child's future life). When we were born in 1947 as a, probably, NATION, we started our journey towards stability toddling on with highest recorded rate of corruption. The fake Claim documents that most of the newly born Pakistani citizens submitted to the Evacuee Trust, became the Ghutti for this nascent country. 

But this does not necessarily mean, we accept it as the odd order of our lives. We need to fight, as already said, this menace in most stern manner. We have come up as one of the most proud nations who have sacrificed lives and soaked the soil of our motherland with our blood. All for the sake of democracy. We have been fighting frequently invading dictators. People of Pakistan have been winning these wars against dictators proudly since last 62 years of our country's existence. The present victory in terms of winning a democratically elected government is a fruit of people's consistent struggle and sacrifices. Now, when we got it, we need to monitor it carefully in order for it to get strengthened and meaningfully responsive to people's needs. But maturity demands a deeper look into the circumstance our system has gotten in. It is very unfortunate that democracy had to put a common denominator a bit backwards on the list of things to do. NRO had to be taken in order to get rid of a dictator. 

But lets just touch upon various other NROs, which were never written, but were hatched very successfully in the corridors of power for vested interests.Accountability's idea first came to the fertile mind of General Zia ul Haq. And his Ehtasaab obviously meant that of PPP. God's sun witnessed PPP leaders either fleeing the country or languishing in jails and torture cells after brief trials under military and civil courts. This was the time when ehtasaab (accountability) became best tool for intiqaam (revenge), and the tradition went on with no tapering. 

When PPP made government in 1988, a parliamentary Committee, Public Accounts Committee unveiled several dozen names of big politicians who had taken hefty loans and written them off.  The list still exists in the National Assembly record, which is now under the custody of PML-N's Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, who gave a landmark statement just yesterday that corruption is as important an issue as is terrorism. I hope media would be responsible enough to urge him to unveil that list once again and hand it over to the worthy Supreme Court. It would be easier for the apex court then, to take on the process of anti-corruption it has taken on.

When Farooq Leghari got rid of Benazir's second government, he very generously made different cases of corruption against BB and Zardari. His interim cabinet tried to make different laws in order to catalyse the process of EHTASAAB. According to Mr. Najam Sethi, the then cabinet member who took care of ehtasaab process, states that a law was proposed by Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim under which the loans defaulters would not be able to contest election. When the list of loans defaulters was submitted by the State Bank, it transpired that loan defaulters were almost all came from Muslim League. Not a single loan was taken by Benazir. Leghari's scheme failed, BB could not come under it, but his only hope, Nawaz Sharif came under it hugely, who threatened to boycott the elections if the list is not taken back. This became another unwritten NRO.  Nawaz Sharif was able to grab power once again under this NRO!

Musharraf came to power after a bloodless coup d'tat in 1999 deposing elected government of Nawaz Sharif. He was arrested and put behind the bars. But something happened and he left the country with bag, baggage and family. This constituted yet another un-written NRO. The deal was sealed, Nawaz Sharif was given what he wanted, lif and enough money to survive. So much so that he was able to set up a steal mill in Jaddah that became a gold mine for him later. Also, we saw a report in Time magazine according to which world's four richest Generals were Pakistanis. One of them being a former Director General ISI, who was labelled by us as a Shaheed for dying with General Zia, in an air crash. If we rely on the memory of Najam Sethi, there was no denial from concerned Generals, or from Army as institution in question.

Now, come to this written NRO, termed infamous, notorious and black law by our very righteous, sagacious and moral media brigade, was issued by Musharraf in October 2007. In all our passion for fighting corruption and getting the culprits face law, we totally forgot that PPP leaders who were "benefited" by NRO were already languishing in jails. Most elongated time was served by the now president Asif Ali Zardari, the one we hate most. Although, we would like him, and all culprits of corruption to face law and get punished, but still, we need to be a bit fair as well. Even if all the cases put together, and even if all the cases are proved against Zardari or other accused leaders, 8 years is life imprisonment. Some of the people have already served more than this term, in jails, that too, in solitary confinement. The question here arises, why should present government not resign after such allegations? The counter question is, why the accusations should be taken as proved crime? If it is made moral question, are these allegations two days old? If not, then this government came into being while the accusations were there. If moral question was not raised during elections, why it has become prime question at this point in time? Why is the recent NRO verdict taken as "proof of corruption"? It certainly does not speak of someone being proven corrupt, all it says is that an Ordinance (called NRO) should not exist because according to court it is repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution of Pakistan. The fall out of this verdict is to be seen. President has a constitutionally granted impunity while other leaders (predominantly from MQM) would face the cases when re-opened. 

Moreover, NRO beneficiaries from PPP were the same when they were elected to public offices in 2008. People who voted for them knew almost everything that our media keeps telling us now. We should indeed start our crusade against corruption, why not with the people, who have neither been tried in any court nor been accused publicly to make them equally responsible for this crime. Why not taking care of those un-written NROs that have always been saved of coming to people's eyes? So that those who are very sure of their practical impunity, should get it loud and clear that they can't fool people any more. These professional loan defaulters have taken the benefit of NRO, in that if the NRO was not there, there would not have elections or coming back of Nawaz Sharif to the country. 

Politics, they say, is the art of possible. You have to make it possible for yourself to be in the game, play your turn and make the score. Here, "be in the game" would mean be able to contest elections; "play your turn" is making your government and making score is prevail on policy and legislation in order to serve the constituent in accordance with the announced manifesto of your party. If you fail the test, you certainly are an ineffective politician who fails the survival of fittest test. PPP tried to make it possible for not only itself, but other major players also. This could only happen if negotiation table is set and the usurper is made to sit on it in front of you. You try to see his cards to make your move. This is how practical politics takes a course different from the business of clergy. The sooner we realize this, the better the democracy will be served in our country. Governance is not going to be assured by penalizing the already penalized. The beauty of democracy is that it filters down unworthy people, only if it is given a chance. 

 
8 Comments

Posted in Writings

 
 
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes