Re: Naeem Bukhari and the fate of pro govt lawyers
SCJ = Supreme Court Judge? :aq:
Edit: Counterpoint:
**The Naeem Bokhari attack
**](The News International: Latest News Breaking, World, Entertainment, Royal News)
The Pakistan report card*
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Fasi Zaka
I, like many others appreciated Nasim Zehra’s article condemning the beating Naeem Bokhari took at the courts at the hands of incensed lawyers over his role in the judicial crisis. Her article was timely, and she was right to point out that it was an ugly and vulgar incident. But more so, she was brave in supporting someone who had lost public favour on a matter of principle.
But the article, ‘Assault on a lawyer’, by Naeem Bokhari published on these pages yesterday made waters murkier. There can be no justification for the attempted lynching, and Naeem Bokhari has every right to hold his opinions. Ostensibly a clarification, it continued with the same vein that created bad blood between him and others who see the reinvigoration of the judiciary as a positive sign of the health of this nation.
Naeem Bokhari wrote an open letter charging the chief justice with many transgressions. For many, it was speculated as the government’s first volley in the attempt to remove the CJ. When the government did charge sheet the CJ, it mirrored the letter Naeem Bokhari wrote. Eventually of course, the courts vindicated Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and reinstated him. When Naeem Bokhari asks why he should apologise, there is no compulsion on him to do so if he continues to feel he has moral high ground. But it is interesting to note that the last paragraph in his open letter to the chief justice reads: “My Lord, we all live in the womb of time and are judged, both by the present and by history. The judgment about you, being rendered in the present, is adverse in the extreme.” That, of course, turned out to be the opposite when the Supreme Court ruled against the government’s case, and in fact did not even pursue some of the charges spelled out in the end."
And again, Naeem Bokhari’s open letter also says: “My Lord, before a rebellion arises among your brother judges (as in the case of Mr Justice Sajjad Ali Shah), before the Bar stands up collectively and before the entire matter is placed before the Supreme Judicial Council, there may be time to change and make amends.” Again, the brother judges did not revolt and the only person the bar stood up collectively against was Naeem Bokhari himself. Naeem Bokhari is under no compulsion to apologise to anyone, but his open letter does demonstrate he erred in his judgment and his prophecies were not worthy of Nostradamus.
It is undeniable that Mr Bokhari went through an experience no man should endure, one that can shatter their fate in humanity which explains his pessimistic view of Pakistan’s readiness for democracy. He alludes to the fact that he can now symphonise with black people lynched by the KKK. The excesses committed against him on that day were reminiscent of the outrages committed against the slave population of the US. However, the contexts between Naeem Bokhari and the slaves are extremely different.
Naeem Bokhari sided with the powerful, the president. He also sided as a consequence with the dictatorship. The lynching’s that took place in the US until the 1960s were extra judicial killings of the powerless who demanded freedom and representation in the democratic institutions on a free and equal basis. Mr Bokhari has referred to lynching to explain his ordeal, and that may be a fair assessment in terms of methodology. But when he says the lawyers’ attack was an example of “judicial activism”, he is wrong.
Judicial activism is too pleasant a word to be soiled in that context. Judicial activism is when the Supreme Court takes notice of the excesses of the intelligence agencies that make people disappear, judicial activism is when the Supreme Court takes notice of the violation of the poor when a market is created for parts of their bodies, judicial activism is when the Supreme Court nullifies the sale of government property aimed to enrich a select few and not government coffers.
Secondly, there seems to be an insinuation in his letter that the chief justice was also responsible for the carnage on May 12. That is the same as the government’s spin on the orchestrated violence that happened that day. It’s simply not true, and deserves no space for repeating this discredited argument. Naeem Bokhari is bitter, that much is evident from the article. He describes a litany of what is wrong with the country and this society. It’s hard to counter argue some of the examples. But, the conclusion is suspect. We are ready for democracy, 2007 has been a year whose events no political pundit could predict because the agent of change, and those who demand democratic reform, has come from the people, not the usual rag tag suspects who play puppetry with our institutions.
Naeem Bokhari argues that he didn’t lodge an FIR on account of his inability to trust the court because it didn’t protect him in the premises, well, the police did, and it was their job to do so. But even if he chooses not to pursue a case, if the events as he describes took place then it was attempted murder. He deserves justice, despite his pessimism on receiving it.
The writer is a Rhodes Scholar and former academic. Email: fasizaka@y ahoo.com
Unlike some you have a pretty wicked sense of humour Aalsi. Good point as well btw. :k:
koi nayee baat??