Legal fraternity’s war of words
A war of words has broken out in the lawyers’ fraternity
over the contentious issue of independence of the judiciary. The controversy
was sparked off by the resolution passed by the six-member executive committee
of the Punjab Bar Council (PbBC) on April 20, 2019 calling for the removal of
Supreme Court (SC) Justice Qazi Faez Isa for allegedly ridiculing the armed
forces in his verdict in the Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan (TLP) dharna (sit-in) case. The very next day,
four bodies of Sindh lawyers condemned the PbBC demand and expressed solidarity
with Justice Isa. On April 22, 2019, just two days later, the Pakistan Bar
Council (PBC), the apex body of the lawyers community, also jumped into the
fray. It called the PbBC resolution uncalled for, unnecessary, and a
transgression of the independence of the judiciary. Justice Isa, it pronounced
in his defence, was an upright, competent judge who always discharged his
functions without fear or favour. The PBC went on to underline that it would
never support any move against the Constitution or the independence of the
judiciary. Subsequently, the PBC stance was appreciated and supported by
different bar councils throughout the country. This row that has divided the
lawyers community revolves around the strongly worded judgement written by
Justice Isa in the TLP case, in which the Ministry of Defence and the chiefs of
all branches of the military were directed to penalise any personnel under
their command who violated their oath in ‘dealing’ with the sit-in. The
judgement went on to ask the federal government to monitor the advocates of
hate, extremism and terrorism and prosecute the perpetrators. Adverse
observations followed against government departments for causing inconvenience
to the residents of Islamabad-Rawalpindi during the 20-day dharna. The judgement has evoked a raft of review petitions that
are still to be heard. The other case roiling the lawyers’ community is that of
former Islamabad High Court judge Shauqat Siddiqui. The PbBC lauded his removal
by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) for ‘transgressing the limits’. This
‘transgression’ consisted of the startling accusations Justice Siddiqui made
against the intelligence agencies for interfering in judicial matters. The
Karachi Bar Association wants to file a petition in the SC for an inquiry into
Justice Siddiqui’s allegations, something it feels the SJC should have ordered
but failed to do.
These two issues regarding two members of the superior
judiciary, one removed by the SJC, the other still sitting on the SC, reflect
the internal, perennially divisive politics of the judicial system and its
increasing vulnerability to external influence. But they also reflect the
current concerns amongst wide sections of the citizenry regarding the present
climate of silencing dissent and criticism of the role of the security agencies
in national affairs. It would be well to recall how the security agencies have
wrapped themselves in a cloak of impunity on issues such as enforced
disappearances and the long pending Asghar Khan case. Pakistan’s history is
littered with examples of how the judicial system either collaborated with, or
endorsed deviations from the Constitution, particularly military coups and
dictatorship. If the judiciary has, since the seminal lawyers’ movement against
Pervez Musharraf’s sacking of almost the entire superior judiciary in 2007,
acquired a modicum of independence, with the best minds in its ranks having the
courage of conviction to speak truth to power that refuses to acknowledge any
constraints on its freedom of action even outside the law, this is surely
something to be celebrated as a significant turnaround in our fortunes and not
an occasion for carping in defence of ‘holy cows’. In any civilised, modern,
democratic polity, while according due respect to the members of the armed
forces who lay their lives on the line in defence of the country, this cannot
become a justification for ignoring any wrongdoing by any institution, no
matter how powerful. In fact it could be argued that the ‘more loyal than the
King’ six members of the PbBC executive committee (who seem not to have even
the unqualified support of the PbBC as a whole) are not doing the cause of the institution
they have risen in ‘defence’ of much good. Institutions are strengthened and
gain more respect if wrongdoing in their ranks is treated as it should be: a
transgression of the oath of office, mandate, law and Constitution. Justice
Siddiqui may not have picked the right method or forum to air his strong
accusations, but it seems an anomaly that he stands removed while the serious
allegations remain unprobed. In Justice Isa’s case, the TLP verdict is a
shining example of bold adherence to the truth, law and the Constitution. It should
be appreciated and the SC should deal with the campaign against him (not for
the first time, it may be added) to prevent any further maligning of a judge of
the apex court.
No comments:
Post a Comment