Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

Independent judiciary is essential for survival of the nation, and the lota judges sitting on the SC have no legitimacy.

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=82776

Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary
Monday, November 26, 2007
Matiullah Jan

Major opposition parties, foreign governments, and international organizations are trying to fool the people of Pakistan by setting easy and achievable targets and deadlines for General Pervez Musharraf. With an eye on the prime minister’s post through some deal with the military, Benazir Bhutto is no more interested in restoration of the constitutional chief justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Mohmmad Chaudhry and other judges.

Similarly US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, as also the Commonwealth Organization, are only asking Musharraf to leave the post of army chief, lift the emergency, hold general elections and release all political activists. Starting off with demands like release and restoration of superior court judges, these players are now shifting the goal posts making it easy for General Musharraf to score a goal. Musharraf will resign as army chief, lift the emergency, release all political activists, and hold elections but he will never restore the superior court judges, which is the real issue.

All this reminds me of a practical joke when I was only seven years old (way back in 1975). A tug-of-war competition was staged in a swimming pool, between different army units, at Gujranawala Cantt. Just before the soldiers started pulling the rope an army colonel quietly walked past us and tied one end of the rope with a tree so that his unit could not be dragged to defeat. The results are anybody’s guess, that colonel’s unit won. What surprised me however was the prize distribution where that colonel was given a prize — for his obvious “dhandli” no less — amid loud clapping and cheers.

The whole event flashes back to my mind every time General Mushrraf and his so-called legal wizards boldly, and without remorse, admit that the Nov. 3 Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) was extra-constitutional and yet they want to be rewarded for this. The international friends and the “friendly opposition” seems to have tied the Musharraf end of the rope where he might be allowed to touch the centre line but not cross it. That centreline here is the restoration of judges and when the forces of lawyers, media and genuine opposition will get tired of waddling in the pool of politics, Musharraf will have pulled them to defeat easily.

Interestingly, all anti-Musharraf elements including civil society are making demands from the general himself to undo his actions as if by doing that all his actions then would then become all right. How can someone, who had no power to issue an order, be asked to withdraw it? How can a stranger/intruder be allowed to stay in a house for free if he agrees not to harm the inmates? This has happened before and is happening again, unless, pro-democracy forces declare an all out struggle against dictatorship and make this a non-negotiable issue.

**The Supreme Court’s latest judgments are not a surprise. But surprising is the statement by Attorney General’s Malik Muhammad Qayyum that General Musharraf will take oath under the Constitution. What a regard for Constitution! Why not under PCO? Has the situation suddenly improved after the green signal to Mushrraf’s election from the Supreme Court? Have the suicide bombers gone on leave? Has terrorism completely ended?

If General Musharraf takes oath under the Constitution it will be approximately his sixth. If that happens then the Supreme Court judges will once again have to take oath under the Constitution.** For lawyers the concept and sanctity of the act of oath couldn’t have been disgraced more.

I hate to say this but the regime seems to have won the battle against the people of Pakistan.** As per the Supreme Court judgments Mr Pervez Musharraf will be the president for the next five years and Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar will remain the chief justice until — well the next PCO. The constitutional judges are gone; the PCO courts activated, the media is gradually being opened but remains in “intensive care” and it is now too late for real-time public debate on the constitutionality of the presidential actions to be triggered.**

PPP Chairperson Benazir Bhutto will welcome with open arms, the lifting of emergency and Pervez Musharraf without uniform. She will not remember Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and other superior court judges. After all they were the ones who could have dissolved the marriage of convenience, described as National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), even before it was consummated.

The worst part is that most of us look at the whole situation as another “constitutional issue” to be decided after a traditional prolonged drama inside the apex court building. It has happened many times now that some not-so-brave people sit on benches inside the sacred building and through their “judgments” tell the Pakistanis that when the next time the army takes over, they should wait for and abide by some “provisional constitutional order” and watch on PTV (Pakistan Tunnel Vision) the taking of oath ceremony.

The media too has stepped right into the trap. An army chief gets his stenographer to type out some English/legal document and announces it on television as something, which according to him is provisional, constitutional, and above all, an order. We in the media readily accept the term and then the worst part is that we start using the terms like ‘former’, ‘deposed’, and ‘ex’ for the Chief Justice of Pakistan and become a party to the whole illegality, and we do it without even a disclaimer. Why can’t media bodies decide that the media should not become a party to such “extra-constitutional” steps of the government and until, at least parliament, endorses it, we should keep on writing, for example, ‘Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry’.

It is ironic that in a country where the constitution is subverted and ‘suspended’ by military authorities, the media is blamed for violation of some code-like thing? After all the earlier amendments into electronic media laws are yet to be enforced or even withdrawn as was promised by no less than the president himself. The recent crackdown against media was also not under that particular amendment whose withdrawal was vehemently demanded and negotiated by the media bodies before the emergency.

In the process, the media also seems to have abandoned its long-standing position against the press council. In fact, one of the ‘deposed’ Supreme Court judges has been appointed as head of the council, and he is one of several individuals whose restoration as Supreme Court judge civil society has been struggling. Who is to blame if now the media is seen in public as a partner in crime as it affixes its stamp of approval on the military’s emergency actions? If Satan is the bouncer at the gates of Heaven, should the pious seek his permission to enter? No, they should fight him.

The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance journalist who specialises in court reporting and media issues. E-mail: [email protected]

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

I say restore the judges pre-2002 (first PCO/LFO?)

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

I agree, and not only that LFO/PCO that were made part of the constitution by Mushrraf should also be thrown out.

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

That is why we need the lawers to rise up and make themselves heard once again... We need them to join hands with journalists and media persons to force the dictator to give in...
Musharaf will have won if he is granted a reprieve, and the chief Justice in not reinstated...

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

This is the only solution for our country....rule of law>>>>

I do not see any commando style army solution for the mess we are in today....it never solved anything in the past....it will never solve anything in future....

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

I think the dictator should also be thrown out together with all the mess he has created>>>

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

Lawyers! As they have all the time in the world after collecting their 100% fee in advance. And their poor clients are left hodling they baby.

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

I think he will be thrown out, and if not, he will become irrelevant w/o the vardi. BTW, I, for one, would like to see him put on trial for treason, but that's wishful thinking on my part.

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

Pakistan bus yuh hi chalta raheey ga! Corruption is deep down here! Hur shaqs ki rago may bhara hua hia.

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

My friend if rule of law is established in the country this is exactly what will happen....however at the moment it seems wishful thinking.....I agree>>>

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

Worked the last time...

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\11\27\story_27-11-2007_pg1_6

Benazir says democratic govt will restore deposed judges

  • Former PM says ready to form alliance with Sharif
  • Files nomination papers for Larkana constituency

LAHORE: PPP Chairwoman Benazir Bhutto has said that a democratic government would restore all the deposed judges of the superior judiciary, Dawn News reported on Monday.

Talking to reporters after filing her nomination papers, she said she was ready to form an alliance with Nawaz Sharif. “We are ready to forge an alliance with all moderate political parties,” she told reporters in Larkana.

“We welcome Nawaz Sharif’s return to Pakistan. It will strengthen the democratic and political culture,” AFP quoted her as saying. Bhutto herself flew home last month after eight years abroad, and the two (BB and Nawaz) are working on a joint strategy against President General Pervez Musharraf following his imposition of emergency. That may include boycotting the elections but a final decision on that will not be taken until after the close of Monday’s deadline for registration.

“We are concerned that elections will be rigged but we don’t want to leave the field empty,” she said.

She said an alliance of moderate parties was also being pushed by the United States. “In the past the United States would support dictatorships but now it is supporting democratic forces, which is a sign of encouragement for all the democracy-loving people,” she added.

Files papers: Earlier, Benazir filed her nomination papers for NA-207, Larkana-Shikarpur-Kamber-Shahdadkot, reported APP. She submitted papers to returning officer Khalid Mahmood Bhatti.

Similarly, Mir Aamir Ali Magsi also filed nomination papers for the same constituency as covering candidate for Benazir. daily times monitor/agencies

Home | Main

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

I would say restore the pre 99 judges, and not the ones who took oath on either of the PCOs.

where is sajjad ali shah when u need him ;)

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

Actually S A Shah was ousted by NS in 1998 by engineering a coup within the SC. He had noting to do with PCOs.

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

My post may have been a littlr confusing.

1998 is pre 1999.

and he has something to do with PCO because he was not among the people who signed it, because he was not around then

and since sajjad ali shah was tossed out by a 'democratgically elected" prime minister, and we are arguing for independence, integrity and what nos of judiciary, should he not be brought back.

I just used him as one example of someone who should be brought back.

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

lol yaar in that case we have to go all the way back to 1954 and bring Justice Cornelius back, but the only problem is he has been dead for while...

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

but sajjad ali shah is alive and from what I know so are most who refused to sign in the first musharraf PCO.

if we are really honest about restoration of free judiciary then the folks who signed on PCO now or teh first one need to.

and the recent judges who were booted out e.g. sajjad ali shah need to be brought back.

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

Interview with Justice (R) Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui

By Massoud Ansari

        Q: How do you view the charges filed against the chief justice?

        A: It would be unfair to comment on this issue. It is for the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) to decide. All I can say is that in the 60-year history of the judiciary, this is the first time that such a reference has been filed against the chief justice of Pakistan.

      Q: Questions are being raised about the manner in which he was removed.

        A: The manner in which the proceedings to remove him were initiated is highly objectionable. The way he was called by the president and the way the charges were read out to him are not within the parameters of the reference proceedings. Similarly, the way he was treated afterwards, that too is not in accordance with the norms of decency. Until such time as the SJC gives the recommendation for his removal to the president, he continues to remain the chief justice.

      Likewise, the way they sealed off his residence, prevented him from meeting people, disallowed his children from going to school and disconnected his phone and TV cable – all this was uncalled for and not in accordance with the law and the constitution.

      Perhaps they thought that by doing this they could force him to resign from the post of chief justice.

      Q: What was the motive behind the government’s decision to remove him?

       A: There is a general perception that the government was not happy with the decisions he made in the Steel Mill case or the case of the missing persons. This may be one of the reasons why they felt that he must be removed.

      However, the allegations, which are now filed in the reference against the chief justice, must have been in the knowledge of the government for quite some time. If they felt that he was guilty of misconduct, they should have taken action against him immediately.

      As we all know, this is an election year and lots of legal issues are to be debated before the elections. This could have been one of the reasons too. However, one should not forget that he is one of the judges who took an oath under the PCO. Normally speaking, the government should not have had any reservations about him.

      Q: You have also served as the chief justice of the Supreme Court. What kind of pressures does a chief justice usually face from a sitting government?

        A: There is no pressure from the government as such. Those (judges) who seek favours from the government, obviously they come under pressure. However, if you do not ask for favours, then there is no pressure at all. I have served as a judge for 20 years; I never felt any pressure. In fact, I was the judge who heard Najam Sethi’s case, and while the government desperately wanted to keep him under detention, we decided the case in seven days and he was set free.

       Q: Would you say that there is a judical crisis in the country?

        A: There is a judicial crisis in the country in the sense that a reference has been filed against the chief justice of Pakistan. It is totally unprecedented. But this is the time for the judiciary to assert itself. They had a chance earlier on as well when the government asked the judges to take oath under the PCO. They should have stood up to the government then and refused to accept the order. However, the judiciary has been given yet another chance to assert itself at a time when people had lost confidence in this institution because of its past track record.

      With the decisions taken in the cases of the Pakistan Steel Mill and the missing persons respectively, hope for an assertive judiciary has been revived in the hearts of the masses. If the judiciary continues to take decisions like these, which are strictly in accordance with the law and the constitution, and are uninfluenced by any consideration, I’m sure that it can establish its credentials in the eyes of the common man.

        Q: But do you see this happening? The chief justice has questioned the credibility of some members of the SJC, but none of them have stepped down.

        A: It is difficult to change the members of the council as per the constitution. No one can do that. However, if an objection is raised against any member, it is for that member to decide whether to continue or not.

        Q: What made you revolt against a fellow judge, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah? This was one of the times when the position of the judiciary was weakened.

        A: Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, who was not the senior-most judge, was appointed chief justice out of turn. This had never happened before. It was always the senior-most judge who was called to take the oath when a chief justice retired. Incidentally, in 1996 Justice Sajjad Ali Shah presided over a case called the ‘judges case,’ which examined the entire procedure for the appointment of judges. Parameters were laid down as to how the judges of the superior courts may be appointed by the government. One of the principles laid down in the case was that the senior-most judge would be appointed as the chief justice of the High Court. The question relating to the appointment of the chief justice of the Supreme Court was left open, to be decided later. However, the question of constitutionality of the appointment of Sajjad Ali Shah as the chief justice was raised in view of the decision taken in the judges case. It was in compliance with the issues raised in several cases that a bench consisting of all the judges of the Supreme Court, minus Sajjad Ali Shah and Justice Ajmal Mian, was constituted to hear and decide these issues. A bench consisting of 10 judges of the Supreme Court heard the petition at length and decided that the appointment of Justice Sajjad Ali Shah as the chief justice was not in accordance with the constitution. In the meantime, three senior judges had already retired, and Justice Ajmal Mian, the most senior judge in the Supreme Court at the time, was recommended to take over as the chief justice by the bench. The bench ordered the government to notify the appointment of Justice Ajmal Mian as the chief justice in place of Justice Sajjad Ali Shah in accordance with the decision of the bench.

       Q: Apparently this decision exposed the infighting among the members of the judiciary and thus undermined its role. Why did you take up a case against one of your own, a case that had been pending for two years?

        A: It was not possible to not take up the case. We had to lay down the procedure and what followed was natural. The case was pending in the Peshawar High Court and he (Justice Sajjad Ali Shah) was not allowing it to be heard. I agree that this was an unfortunate event and that it affected the credibility of the judiciary adversely. But I do not agree that it should not have been taken. It was a constitutional question, and we had to decide it in accordance with the constitution.

       Q: But for the sake of saving the institution you could have decided not to take up a case against your own chief justice.

        A: This was debated. But the bench decided to remove him and to appoint the senior-most judge in his place as the chief justice.

       Q: Why has the judiciary failed to rise to the expectations of the people?

        A: Unfortunately, the judiciary has failed to take decisions in accordance with the constitution. The first recorded instance of the abrogation of the constitution after a military takeover is seen in 1954 in the Tamizuddin case. This was followed by Dosso’s case in 1958 when the abrogation of the constitution by Ayub Khan was legitimised. However, the Supreme Court overturned both these decisions in 1972 in Asma Jeelani’s case and declared Yahya Khan a usurper. Then when the Bhutto government was toppled, the Supreme Court again relied on the principle of the doctrine of necessity and legitimised the military takeover. This ruling was followed in Zafar Ali Shah’s case in 2000 when the military takeover was legitimised once again. So the judges of the Supreme Court have not dealt with the violation of the constitution properly. In fact, on two occasions after the military takeover of 1977 and 1999, the judges were given an oath under the new dispensation and they willingly accepted it. When the judges take an oath, its basic principle is that they will protect and defend the constitution. But by legitimising military takeovers they have abdicated that role.

       Q: You were also the chief justice of Pakistan. Why didn’t you take a stand against the military takeover?

        A: Well, when the Zafar Ali Shah case was filed, the government came out with this new oath which we refused to accept, and they retired us before we could hear that case.

       Q: How can the people’s confidence in the judiciary be restored?

       A: Unless the judiciary asserts itself and counters the moves of the government, they cannot restore their image as defenders of the constitution. The main job of a superior court judge is to guard against the transgressions of government functionaries or those actions of the government that deny people the fundamental rights guaranteed to them under the constitution. Till the Supreme Court fails to perform this function, it cannot restore its image among the general public.

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

Rebel mian, aisay rhetorical sawal kew poochhtai ho. :)

Re: Restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary

I agree, bring back likes of Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid