Lawyers’ moot
The conference on “Superior Judiciary, Accountability and Civil Liberties: Concerns and Corrections” organised by the Pakistan Bar Council and the Supreme Court Bar Association in Islamabad last week boasted virtually the entire opposition and a bevy of lawyers, journalists and rights defenders. The unanimity across these ranks on the subject/s of the conference reflected the state of affairs in the country. The joint declaration adopted at the end of the moot laid down some pertinent and critical points. First and foremost, the moot expressed its dissatisfaction over the procedure in place for appointing judges to the superior judiciary. They described this system as the biggest hurdle in the path of achieving the critical goal of a truly independent judiciary. The declaration demanded revisiting Article 175-A of the Constitution that lays down the procedure for the appointment of judges of the superior judiciary. Unfortunately, the 19thAmendment, the moot argued, had rendered the concept of the judiciary not acting as judge in its own case redundant by giving the judiciary final say in appointments, thereby undermining the role of parliament in the process. There is certainly weight in the observation that the appointment of judges of the superior judiciary through a process that gives the judiciary the final say, hermetically seals the process in the hands of the judiciary itself instead of, as the conference argued, providing all important stakeholders – the judiciary, executive and Bar councils – input under the overall supervision of parliament. Although the conference had a lot to say about accountability, it wanted the principle of accountability extended to all institutions in a fair, objective and transparent manner, including the judiciary. Appointments and the accountability of the judiciary have seen more than their fair share of controversy in recent times, not to mention the painful memory of the judiciary legitimising military coups and dictators to the extent of even giving them the right to amend the Constitution. Since only the judiciary through the Supreme Judicial Council sits in judgement on judges, this ‘in-house’ process too has become controversial. The conference declaration also took to task the present system of accountability as having been reduced to a farce through its use (if not overuse) as a tool for political engineering. The conference demanded a uniform and transparent accountability law under which all institutions and public functionaries should be held accountable without discrimination. Such a law should declare incarceration of the accused before being proven guilty illegal and treat any exemption to any institution as discriminatory and against the principles of justice. Pakistan, the conference declaration went on, was being derailed from the constitutional path of the federal democratic system, and expressed its dismay over the shrinking space for dissent, freedom of the press and civil liberties. It deplored the trend of implicating media persons in treason cases, putting curbs on the media and ‘disappearing’ journalists who dared to challenge the dominant state narrative. Perhaps as a corollary to this, the declaration expressed concern over the increasing interference of the establishment in politics.
Although trends in Pakistan point towards a much stifled atmosphere for objective comment or opinion that runs counter to the national narrative being peddled by the establishment and faithfully parroted by collaborationist politicians and others, the spirit of resistance to such tendencies, weaker though it is in comparison with times past (and worse), is still alive and struggling. The longer and harder this attempt continues, logic suggests the reaction, when it comes, will be severe. Before state and society are convulsed once more by such developments familiar from our past, the powers that be need to don their thinking caps and reflect on the implications of the direction the country is being made to proceed in.
No comments:
Post a Comment