As one of the longest and most popular movement in the history of this country continues amidst calls for a long march and ‘dharna’ on March 9, 2009, a frequent number of questions have been asked by my readers. I would try to answer some of the most frequent questions with reference to past actions of the pre-November 3 judiciary and the significance of such actions in the lives of those who feel that the issue is not paramount to them. It is clear that the present government is unwilling to reverse the actions of a usurper, Mr. Musharraf, and his illegal martial law. This is a dangerous message by our democratically elected government to those who may seek to subvert the constitution for their own interest in the future.
Some of the questions that I was referring to earlier are regarding the veracity of the claim of the present government as well as the incumbent regime led by Mr. Musharraf that the lawyers’ movement means little for ordinary citizens of this country, who allegedly have other priorities that do not seem to co-exist with the lawyers' movement and its agenda which calls for reinstatement of the judiciary as it existed on November 2, 2007 as well as supremacy of rule of law and independence of the judiciary.
I have always impressed upon such fellow citizens the significance of an independent judiciary which touches upon every problem that they have, whether it is economic in nature or relating to the law and order situation or to the freedom that they are entitled to enjoy under the Constitution.
We seem to forget that during Mr. Musharraf's reign, at a time when the administrative limb of the government was obnoxious and indifferent to the sufferings of people, it was the judiciary which took it upon itself to address their grievances and those who were holding power by virtue of their office felt accountable and hence vigilant since the judiciary was insistent that rule of law as opposed to rule of men should be the order of the day. The government was completely oblivious of its task to provide security to ordinary citizens and instances of corruption and nepotism had reached a record level. For the first time, the judiciary was trying to reassert old established legal principles as well as the constitutional safeguards which for example prevent a person from being held in prison or detained indefinitely without any charges. Moreover, the personal benefits that Mr. Musharraf and his cronies, aided by intelligence agencies, accrued upon themselves by extraditing people to the United States, many of who were held in Guantanamo prison, were being reprimanded by the judiciary. Time has proved that the stance of the judiciary in Pakistan was correct as now in the United States itself, Mr. Barack Obama, the new President has underlined the inherent violations of laws that took place by such a process and almost all Guantanamo prisoners are expected to be released.
It is also a fact that Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani was also handed over to the Americans aided by the Pakistani intelligence agencies and had the same judiciary been in place today, the government would have been under pressure to explain the actions of its predecessor as well as bring them to a court of law, including former President Musharraf, who cannot deny his involvement in the whole process since he has admitted agreeing to extradite innocent fellow citizens of his country to the United States for money in his book. Such people have subsequently been tortured illegally. Not only this, all those who aided in her extradition from Pakistan would have been facing the music in a court of law as their action was illegal.
However, this was not to be so. On the other hand, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, amongst many other Pakistanis are stranded in foreign prisons without any pressure on the government by the judiciary to ensure her return or at least attempt to relay the concern of us all to the United States forcefully. Mr. Musharraf and his friends continue to enjoy the millions that they made by ‘selling’ these people like ordinary commodities to the United States. They roam freely while their sisters and brothers are trying to figure out what sin they had committed to deserve such agony and pain. What if, anyone of us, was in her place?
How then can we neglect the importance of an independent judiciary which, without being concerned about the ‘class’ or ‘influence’ of people, who sell people like animals, brings them to justice?
Some questions are also asked as to how the economic woes of people can be resolved by the reinstatement of an independent judiciary. Some people have asked me whether the need to improve the economy of the country, as well as the plight of the poor, should not be the priority of all of us, including the lawyers? Some also ask how reinstatement of a few judges would ensure an independent judiciary and supplant this question with the argument that the majority of the judges have already been restored so the lawyers should not persist with their demand for a full reinstatement. My answer to them is that an independent judiciary goes beyond the matter of reinstatement of certain judges and ouster of others. It is the institution which has to be looked at collectively and if any single judge is retired prematurely or barred from performing the functions of a judge, the sanctity of the whole institution does not remain above board. The only way to restore the sanctity of the institution is to restore the position as it stood as it were prior to the unlawful act of removal of the judge or judges at the earliest.
We forget the significance and implications of the infamous case when billions of worth of Pakistan Steel Mills was being sold at a throwaway price. Surely if this attempt had succeeded, the national exchequer, which is the collective wealth of all of us as Pakistanis, would have been literally looted. In macro economic terms, it would mean deprivation of billions of rupees which if in our national exchequer, would perhaps enable us to retire some of our debt or not seek new ones and which would in turn decrease the inflation for ordinary people when the benefits trickle down (the direct connection may some how seem remote to some economists). How then can we disassociate the economic plight of this country, be that poverty alleviation, employment generation from an independent judiciary?
Similarly there are other instances where the country's national exchequer was stopped from being looted and plundered. The housing project planned by the PML (Q) top leadership in Murree, which was stayed by the Supreme Court is another case in point. Besides other misappropriations, the project was believed to be an environmental disaster in waiting which would have led to severe deforestation. There are many other examples which will not be cited here to avoid repetition as they have been reported numerously in the newspapers and columns. I ask all my respected questioners to think about these questions before they even start thinking that the lawyers' movement is not their own. To the contrary, the lawyers' movement is more the movement of all Pakistanis as the cause of the lawyers of this country is greater their own cause. Is it not true that lawyers have suffered economically as a result of this movement? Would it then be just to say that this movement is for their own benefit? Apart from those who choose to defect and were accommodated by this government and its predecessors, are not the lawyers the biggest losers in material terms as their boycott has resulted in tremendous economic slump in their conditions and many are not even in a position to live a decent life?
We should also not forget how the independent judiciary ensured the independence of the media and allowed masses to view the criticisms of the government and know where the money they pay through taxes was being spent. Had an independent judiciary existed between the martial law imposed by Musharraf and the elections, the millions of rupees spent illegally from the national exchequer to support the electoral campaign of the PML (Q) would have also been checked by that judiciary. It is pertinent to mention that there was video evidence how state officials had supported the PML (Q) campaign and the post-martial law judiciary had chosen to neglect such irregularities. In the hypothetical event that the pre November 3 judiciary been present it would have saved our precious national wealth from being spent to support a campaign of the political power closest to Mr. Musharraf and our country would have certainly been better off. Consequently, the poor and the ordinary would have suffered less since the depletion of resources of the state means the decreased ability of the state to intervene for their interest as well as decreased economic strength which in turn leads to lesser resources being devoted for developmental projects and investments.
To illustrate this point, for example, would we not have been in a better situation to pay off the Independent Power Producers and decrease the electricity deficit and power shortage in the country? It is worth noting that the non-payment to the private power companies was one of the reasons why we faced prolonged power shortages even when the new government took power. Would an independent judiciary not ensure transparency in the new contracts being granted to new power generators to overcome the present energy crises and avoid the repetition of the previously bad contracts with power companies which also patently resulted in a long, expensive and embattled legal battle with Hubco in the past, increased electricity cost for us as consumers as well as the industry, and which also harmed foreign investment amongst the disadvantages already outlined?
To summarize, the plight of a nation, in every sphere of life, improves if strong institutions exist. The importance of the judiciary, being one of the institutions, cannot be understated. An independent judiciary, directly and indirectly, helps establish good governance as well as ensures that rule of law as opposed to rule of men exists. Rule of law ensures transparency, accountability and a sense of participation Rule of men is the pillar stone of corruption, misappropriation and leads to irregularities which in turn burdens the ordinary people of the country. So lets join the lawyers like myself, who seek to preserve and restore the sanctity of the judiciary which is only possible when the assault on it by a usurper like Mr. Musharraf is undone by reinstatement of the judiciary as it stood on November 2, 2007. By supporting March 9, 2009, physically by our participation in the long march, or morally if for one reason or the other the participation is not possible, we should give a message that we as a society have not degenerated and would struggle to establish our rights and the principles the founding fathers laid for us. If we do not stand up collectively, who will?
Some of the questions that I was referring to earlier are regarding the veracity of the claim of the present government as well as the incumbent regime led by Mr. Musharraf that the lawyers’ movement means little for ordinary citizens of this country, who allegedly have other priorities that do not seem to co-exist with the lawyers' movement and its agenda which calls for reinstatement of the judiciary as it existed on November 2, 2007 as well as supremacy of rule of law and independence of the judiciary.
I have always impressed upon such fellow citizens the significance of an independent judiciary which touches upon every problem that they have, whether it is economic in nature or relating to the law and order situation or to the freedom that they are entitled to enjoy under the Constitution.
We seem to forget that during Mr. Musharraf's reign, at a time when the administrative limb of the government was obnoxious and indifferent to the sufferings of people, it was the judiciary which took it upon itself to address their grievances and those who were holding power by virtue of their office felt accountable and hence vigilant since the judiciary was insistent that rule of law as opposed to rule of men should be the order of the day. The government was completely oblivious of its task to provide security to ordinary citizens and instances of corruption and nepotism had reached a record level. For the first time, the judiciary was trying to reassert old established legal principles as well as the constitutional safeguards which for example prevent a person from being held in prison or detained indefinitely without any charges. Moreover, the personal benefits that Mr. Musharraf and his cronies, aided by intelligence agencies, accrued upon themselves by extraditing people to the United States, many of who were held in Guantanamo prison, were being reprimanded by the judiciary. Time has proved that the stance of the judiciary in Pakistan was correct as now in the United States itself, Mr. Barack Obama, the new President has underlined the inherent violations of laws that took place by such a process and almost all Guantanamo prisoners are expected to be released.
It is also a fact that Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani was also handed over to the Americans aided by the Pakistani intelligence agencies and had the same judiciary been in place today, the government would have been under pressure to explain the actions of its predecessor as well as bring them to a court of law, including former President Musharraf, who cannot deny his involvement in the whole process since he has admitted agreeing to extradite innocent fellow citizens of his country to the United States for money in his book. Such people have subsequently been tortured illegally. Not only this, all those who aided in her extradition from Pakistan would have been facing the music in a court of law as their action was illegal.
However, this was not to be so. On the other hand, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, amongst many other Pakistanis are stranded in foreign prisons without any pressure on the government by the judiciary to ensure her return or at least attempt to relay the concern of us all to the United States forcefully. Mr. Musharraf and his friends continue to enjoy the millions that they made by ‘selling’ these people like ordinary commodities to the United States. They roam freely while their sisters and brothers are trying to figure out what sin they had committed to deserve such agony and pain. What if, anyone of us, was in her place?
How then can we neglect the importance of an independent judiciary which, without being concerned about the ‘class’ or ‘influence’ of people, who sell people like animals, brings them to justice?
Some questions are also asked as to how the economic woes of people can be resolved by the reinstatement of an independent judiciary. Some people have asked me whether the need to improve the economy of the country, as well as the plight of the poor, should not be the priority of all of us, including the lawyers? Some also ask how reinstatement of a few judges would ensure an independent judiciary and supplant this question with the argument that the majority of the judges have already been restored so the lawyers should not persist with their demand for a full reinstatement. My answer to them is that an independent judiciary goes beyond the matter of reinstatement of certain judges and ouster of others. It is the institution which has to be looked at collectively and if any single judge is retired prematurely or barred from performing the functions of a judge, the sanctity of the whole institution does not remain above board. The only way to restore the sanctity of the institution is to restore the position as it stood as it were prior to the unlawful act of removal of the judge or judges at the earliest.
We forget the significance and implications of the infamous case when billions of worth of Pakistan Steel Mills was being sold at a throwaway price. Surely if this attempt had succeeded, the national exchequer, which is the collective wealth of all of us as Pakistanis, would have been literally looted. In macro economic terms, it would mean deprivation of billions of rupees which if in our national exchequer, would perhaps enable us to retire some of our debt or not seek new ones and which would in turn decrease the inflation for ordinary people when the benefits trickle down (the direct connection may some how seem remote to some economists). How then can we disassociate the economic plight of this country, be that poverty alleviation, employment generation from an independent judiciary?
Similarly there are other instances where the country's national exchequer was stopped from being looted and plundered. The housing project planned by the PML (Q) top leadership in Murree, which was stayed by the Supreme Court is another case in point. Besides other misappropriations, the project was believed to be an environmental disaster in waiting which would have led to severe deforestation. There are many other examples which will not be cited here to avoid repetition as they have been reported numerously in the newspapers and columns. I ask all my respected questioners to think about these questions before they even start thinking that the lawyers' movement is not their own. To the contrary, the lawyers' movement is more the movement of all Pakistanis as the cause of the lawyers of this country is greater their own cause. Is it not true that lawyers have suffered economically as a result of this movement? Would it then be just to say that this movement is for their own benefit? Apart from those who choose to defect and were accommodated by this government and its predecessors, are not the lawyers the biggest losers in material terms as their boycott has resulted in tremendous economic slump in their conditions and many are not even in a position to live a decent life?
We should also not forget how the independent judiciary ensured the independence of the media and allowed masses to view the criticisms of the government and know where the money they pay through taxes was being spent. Had an independent judiciary existed between the martial law imposed by Musharraf and the elections, the millions of rupees spent illegally from the national exchequer to support the electoral campaign of the PML (Q) would have also been checked by that judiciary. It is pertinent to mention that there was video evidence how state officials had supported the PML (Q) campaign and the post-martial law judiciary had chosen to neglect such irregularities. In the hypothetical event that the pre November 3 judiciary been present it would have saved our precious national wealth from being spent to support a campaign of the political power closest to Mr. Musharraf and our country would have certainly been better off. Consequently, the poor and the ordinary would have suffered less since the depletion of resources of the state means the decreased ability of the state to intervene for their interest as well as decreased economic strength which in turn leads to lesser resources being devoted for developmental projects and investments.
To illustrate this point, for example, would we not have been in a better situation to pay off the Independent Power Producers and decrease the electricity deficit and power shortage in the country? It is worth noting that the non-payment to the private power companies was one of the reasons why we faced prolonged power shortages even when the new government took power. Would an independent judiciary not ensure transparency in the new contracts being granted to new power generators to overcome the present energy crises and avoid the repetition of the previously bad contracts with power companies which also patently resulted in a long, expensive and embattled legal battle with Hubco in the past, increased electricity cost for us as consumers as well as the industry, and which also harmed foreign investment amongst the disadvantages already outlined?
To summarize, the plight of a nation, in every sphere of life, improves if strong institutions exist. The importance of the judiciary, being one of the institutions, cannot be understated. An independent judiciary, directly and indirectly, helps establish good governance as well as ensures that rule of law as opposed to rule of men exists. Rule of law ensures transparency, accountability and a sense of participation Rule of men is the pillar stone of corruption, misappropriation and leads to irregularities which in turn burdens the ordinary people of the country. So lets join the lawyers like myself, who seek to preserve and restore the sanctity of the judiciary which is only possible when the assault on it by a usurper like Mr. Musharraf is undone by reinstatement of the judiciary as it stood on November 2, 2007. By supporting March 9, 2009, physically by our participation in the long march, or morally if for one reason or the other the participation is not possible, we should give a message that we as a society have not degenerated and would struggle to establish our rights and the principles the founding fathers laid for us. If we do not stand up collectively, who will?
1 comment:
dear blogger. we can fight for independent judiciary now or then but this very moment needs us to be united believe me or not long march at this time will undoubtedly create differences between us no matter whether government wins or lawyers. so please postpone your long march at least for a year. you can disagree with me but you can't prove me wrong.
Post a Comment