|
"We must produce a very stable political system because it is only in this way that we can survive" - Justice (R.) Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui is the former Chief Justice of Pakistan. He was forced to step down from his position during the 1999 military coup when he refused to take a new oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO). Siddiqui justified his action saying the "taking oath under the PCO will be a deviation from the oath I had taken to defend the constitution of 1973". Where do you place the lawyers' movement in the current national perspective? This lawyers' movement is of great importance. If you look at the history of judiciary of this country, it doesn't have a very good record and there is nothing to be proud of in the performance of the judiciary. In some cases, the judiciary did express itself strongly and they took a very independent attitude but, by and large, since 1954 there has been a general perception that the judiciary in Pakistan has been always pro-government. Whatever the government dictates, the judiciary follows.
In this background, we have to see what happened in March 2007. This was for the first time that a judge of a superior court said 'No' to a military dictator. It was this attitude which led to a very strong reaction among the legal community and civil society at large, because the civil society, for the first time, realized that the judiciary was ready to take the role assigned to it under the Constitution. It was this perception on the part of the common man that they came out in large numbers when rallies were held from Islamabad to Lahore to Peshawar and other places. A large number of people turned out to see a glimpse of the Chief Justice when he was travelling by road. This has happened for the first time in the history of Pakistan. A reference was made against the chief justice in March 2007 and, in July 2007, a full court gave a historic judgment and restored the chief justice. The people thought the episode had come to an end but you know the rulers of this country - they did not reconcile to that position. There was another important issue which was coming up before the Supreme Court - to decide whether a general in uniform could contest the elections. This was pending before the Supreme Court when General Pervez Musharraf was the ruler and he was also in uniform. He struck twice; once he abrogated the Constitution on October 12, 1999 and the second time he imposed Emergency on November 3, 2007 as a chief of the army staff. He did not have the powers under the Constitution to do so. But he did impose Emergency and also dismissed almost 60 judges of the superior courts with one stroke of his pen and they were all sent home. This step of course could not have been accepted by the legal community and they started agitation against the unconstitutional act of the dictator and this is going on since November 2007. In the mean time there was a change in the political scenario of the country with the general elections on February 18, 2008. This brought hope to the people, that perhaps with the induction of a civilian government, things would change, the attitude of the government would change and they would perhaps restore the judiciary to its position of November 2, 2007. There was virtually a consensus among all the political parties that took part in the elections and they were all of the view that since the action taken by General Musharraf on November 3, 2007 was an unconstitutional one, there would be no difficulty in reversing it because unless an action is confirmed and approved by the parliament, it doesn't acquire immunity. The action taken by Gen. Musharraf was never placed before the National Assembly and was never confirmed by it as required under the procedure of the amendment, so there can be no two opinions that so far as the action of November 3 is concerned, it was an unconstitutional act. The Pakistan Peoples Party and the PML(N) formed a coalition government at the centre. There were also coalition governments in the provinces and things were going on well. There was an agreement between the major political parties that they would abide by their respective manifestos which were issued by them before the elections. They were also relying on the Charter of Democracy, which they signed in London in 2005 and which provided that the judiciary would be restored to its independent position and that no party would deviate from those points that are mentioned in the Charter but nothing like that happened. In spite of the written agreement signed in Murree, the judges were not restored and lots of differences arose between the parties over the issue of the judges. There were agreements again and again. The last one was to the effect that as soon as Gen. Musharraf left office, they would restore the judges to the position of November 2, 2007, within 24 hours. However, despite the fact that Musharraf did leave, nothing happened and the People's Party which was in coalition governments at the centre and in the provinces, did not restore the judges. At that point the PML(N) parted ways with the PPP and left the federal government. Then a new coalition was formed which PPP, MQM, ANP and JUI joined. The PML(N) which was a major political party in Pakistan even accepted that and did not try to destabilize the government at the centre and kept saying that if the promises were fulfilled and judges restored, they would cooperate with the government. Unfortunately, that did not happen and a movement was started by the legal community. They said they would launch a march on the capital from March 12 to 16. The political parties also responded with the PML(N) taking the lead role and the Jamat-e-Islami, Tehreek-e-Insaaf and other nationalist and small parties from Sindh and Balochistan supporting. Now we are virtually in the middle of the long march. In addition, prior to the march a very important incident took place when the Punjab government of PML(N) was dismissed and Governor's rule was imposed in Punjab, on the grounds that the Chief Minister was disqualified by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Now the question is whether Governor's rule could be imposed if the Chief Minister had been disqualified? I think this is no justification because Governor's rule can only be imposed if it is shown to the President that the government of a particular province is not working in accordance with the Constitution. This unconstitutional step taken by the federal government has added fuel to the fire. Now I think a situation has developed and the government is heading towards a very difficult position. The nation has already suffered in so many ways. Can we afford more disruptions like the one created by the long march? You are right - the economic conditions have gone from bad to worse. If you look at the stock exchanges in Pakistan, they have virtually crashed and people have become paupers. The economic conditions are horrible and foreign investors have already withdrawn a lot of money from Pakistan. There are no economic activities in the country and this is creating two-fold difficulties - one, unemployment is increasing and, secondly, the balance of payment condition is also very horrendous. Pakistan cannot afford to have such confrontation. In the present scenario the only way to get things corrected is to achieve consensus among the political parties. We must produce a very stable political system because it is only in this way that we can survive. In my opinion it is time when politicians should view the situation and form a consensus government because it is not possible for a single party in Pakistan to deal with the current situation. The lawyers' movement seems to have been hijacked by the politicians for their own ends. Won't this affect your original cause? This movement was initiated by the legal community but with the new development which has taken place - the disqualification of the two major leaders of a major political party - it has become too politicized, there is no doubt about it. Now political parties have taken over the movement. In these conditions, there should be more care that it should not destabilize the whole political scenario of the country. The current movement is focused on one point, namely, restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. How will this reform the judicial system as a whole? It is not the question of reinstatement of any individual. The question is, 'Can you remove the superior court judges while their tenure is protected under the Constitution?' This is the basic question. Now when you talk about independence of the judiciary, the question arises as to whether protection is available to the person who is performing as a judge? Now, if their tenure is not protected, how would you expect them to act independently? It's not about whether Mr. Chaudhry, Mr. Ramday or Mr. XYZ will be restored or not. As you see, the majority of them have already taken the oath and have joined the government. Only such a judiciary can act independently that has full security of tenure and full backing of the people of Pakistan. If Mr. Chaudhry is restored it will provide strength to the system. What is the fate of the judicial reference that was made against Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry - the point from where all the trouble started? The court has not decided that a reference cannot be made. All that the court has said is that it is a malafide act on the part of the President and such a thing has no existence in law.There are no two opinions that references can always be made against any judge of any court. But the point is whether the reference is bonafide or malafide? The court very rightly declared that the reference was malafide because the manner in which he (CJ) was called and treated at the Presidency and was asked to resign. I think all this shows that it was not a bonafide reference against the Chief Justice. What are the basic changes that must be brought in our judicial system to make it more relevant to our needs? There are many suggestions; there is one bill as well which was introduced sometime back by some political party to improve the system of appointment of judges. The question of appointment of judges is very important and relevant to providing independence of judiciary; we need reform in that direction. There are so many other suggestions which have been floated on the floor of the National Assembly in this regard. Recently you have seen lots of appointments made in the judiciary and that is not the way it should be. It has been done in the earlier time as well in 1994 (PPP's second government) - twenty judges were appointed at one go in Lahore and eight were appointed in Sindh. They have done it once again - 16 judges have been inducted in Lahore and 13 judges in the Supreme Court. I think this is not going to solve the problem, rather it will further weaken the institutions. Would you agree that people seeking legal services have suffered greatly as a result of the lawyers' movement over the past two years? I agree that on account of the lawyers' movement, lots of people have suffered, they are rotting in jails and there is a lot of dissatisfaction among people. I think this is injustice to them. Why should they suffer? They have not done anything wrong. My advice to the lawyers' community is that they should revise the current policy and continue attending cases that are pending in the subordinate courts and have nothing to do with the High Courts or the Supreme Court. Who is going to compensate for the time that has been lost because of all this? Are you confident that the politicians are really sincere about reforming the country's judicial system and that they will not forget about it once their own objectives are achieved? The track record of Sharif Brothers about the judiciary may not be very bright but after the signing of Charter of Democracy in London, they have consistently followed the stand that they have taken. I don't think we should suspect their intentions as so far they have shown that they have respect for whatever they have said. I am sure it is the question of their political survival also and they would not like to put it at stake. They will be doomed if they change their direction now. We cannot forget that they had about seventeen ministries at the centre. If you look into the history of our country, you may hardly find people prepared to sacrifice lucrative jobs but the PML(N) have sacrificed all the seventeen ministries and opted to sit in the opposition instead of joining the government. I think they have already shown that they are ready to abide by what they have said. What will be the future of the lawyers' movement once Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and the others are restored? This movement will come to its end. The movement is principally for restoration of the judiciary to its position of November 2. Once the target is achieved there will be no justification for continuing the movement. 
|
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
