Benazir Bhutto was assasinated at Liaqat Bagh Rawalpindi. This is the same place where Liaqat ali Khan ( a sitting Prime minister ) was assasinated. It is a very sad incident in the history of our nations but how many more incidents are we going to bear. I was just listening to the news and it states that she was hit in the neck and than driven to Rawalpindi general Hospital . I have worked at the hospital and it was a common practice where people with head injury were taken to DHQ hospital in an ambulance. The crisis that i want to point out is the every day crisis that we forget. Those ambulances with critical patients were never given any right of way. We just straddled behind the Tongas and the Taxis and every body else . I wonder how long it took to get to the hospital. Would some one ever address that if she could have gotten to the hospital in time or the health care services were as they should be ,Would she be alive today . Let us join together and condemn this Heinous incident and not attempt to speculate and hold this side or that side responsible. Any one of us could be in this position .I hope that every one will work towards solutions with this thing in mind ,that no one is immune to this violence and it could hit any home , any person. The planes get blown away, the prime ministers get shot at, people during eid prayer are bombed . It is not us vs them , it is us blowing ourselves away. Humanity is the victim and humans are culprits. Lets work to restore Humanity in the world.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Monday, December 03, 2007
I need Colors in my life!!
Wonderful Picture But a sad Story, I saw this picture flickr'd by Techunar. Can't help but notice that the Child in the Picture is happy lively and smiling, In contrast Her name is " Ujjri " May be the parents were naming her not on who she is but where she lives and was born. Ironic she lives and works for 200 rupees / month ( 3 dollars notice/month ) In Larkana . I hope we realize this is the real emergency in Pakistan. BB and Nawaz can't do much about it, the military is not going to do anything about it, We the people will have to. We don't have a choice, we have a conscious and we can't let Ujrii accept the fate that her parents seemed to have resigned to accept by naming Her Ujjri
visit www.hdf.com and help make a difference. We at hdf put kids in School.
Law And Order Military Logic
Pakistan s ( defacto ) President Musharraf enforced another martial Law in the country on November 3 citing law and order situation. It has been discussed extensively in the press and all over the country what the real reasons for the Provisional (un) constitutional Order were.
I was slow to understand but suddenly I understand his Logic. He seems to have started this with a sincere effort or it seems. What happened than. The law and order situation had been the same for past few years and what happened.
It is the military logic stupid. What does Order mean to Military boots. Some one tells you to do some thing and you do it. Order doesn't mean smooth running of the state. So what was the "LAW and ORDER situation " .Well "LAW" was clashing with the "ORDER". The Military had ordered that General Musharaf would be the president. The " LAW" was saying No. Now Therefore ( Mr Mushes Language ) there was LAW and ORDER situation. In conflict what does a military mind do, eliminates the other. So understandably " LAW " had to go. So therefore he got rid Of the " LAW " . Why is civil society and media not understanding this is perplexing him. He got rid of the LAW and only thing remains is ORDER.He solved the law and order situation . He should Be given Medals and Honours. So ( therefore ) any one who doesn't like this must not want order, so (therefore ) must be a terrorsist.
Military Logic doesn't understand that Law and Order can mutually coexist , in fact have to coexist , and if one goes the other had to go, but than who will help him understand the difference between the two meaning s of " order " . Wasi Zafar ?
Lets pray that Military Logic does fade away after the Uniform is gone. There is hope as there are a few generals who after being 'retired " have started to think Logically and not use PMA Logic
I was slow to understand but suddenly I understand his Logic. He seems to have started this with a sincere effort or it seems. What happened than. The law and order situation had been the same for past few years and what happened.
It is the military logic stupid. What does Order mean to Military boots. Some one tells you to do some thing and you do it. Order doesn't mean smooth running of the state. So what was the "LAW and ORDER situation " .Well "LAW" was clashing with the "ORDER". The Military had ordered that General Musharaf would be the president. The " LAW" was saying No. Now Therefore ( Mr Mushes Language ) there was LAW and ORDER situation. In conflict what does a military mind do, eliminates the other. So understandably " LAW " had to go. So therefore he got rid Of the " LAW " . Why is civil society and media not understanding this is perplexing him. He got rid of the LAW and only thing remains is ORDER.He solved the law and order situation . He should Be given Medals and Honours. So ( therefore ) any one who doesn't like this must not want order, so (therefore ) must be a terrorsist.
Military Logic doesn't understand that Law and Order can mutually coexist , in fact have to coexist , and if one goes the other had to go, but than who will help him understand the difference between the two meaning s of " order " . Wasi Zafar ?
Lets pray that Military Logic does fade away after the Uniform is gone. There is hope as there are a few generals who after being 'retired " have started to think Logically and not use PMA Logic
Friday, November 23, 2007
Another Gang Rape
Some years ago there was a despicable incident in Mirwala Punjab. It is a samll town of people with no education but ironically call themselves Muslims. The village Had a Punjayet ( court ) . In some sort of retribution they allowed a group of Gangsters to Rape an innocent girl for crimes that her brother committed. There are probably many such incidents around the country like this.This Brave lady stands up and the world listens. She opens a school. I am not sure the culprits were ever taken to task But I always felt that the culprit was the whole town. The Gangsters that committed the crime , the Court that ordered it and than the spectators or people that knew about it and continued to go on in life as business usual.
Now there is another gang rape, similiar but different . The atrocity is the same , a gangster in Khaki wardi, who has taken ( my motherland ) hostage . He is raping her every day in full view of the world.He has even killed the Punjayet and made his own Punjayet .This punjayet in fact has allowed him to do this . The people that might have complained have been locked up and now there are a 160 million people and my Motherland being Raped again and again by these gangsters .There are some that are with the gangster. There are so many watching that Tamasha . Who is responsible here, who should I go to . The gangsters are gangster . I can't expect anything better from them , but the Punjayet is also saying that he would burn the village down if we don't let him rape your mother.
Doesn't this sound familiar, a country my motherland is being publicly raped by a bunch of Gangsters , ridiculed ,in full view of the world. I am told not to say anything or i will be arrested and today the court says it is okay , It is okay to rape my country ? My mother ?. I wonder what did the Punjayet in Mirwala think when they allowed that rape, must be they were preserving the village from internal strive. How despicable. This is happening and people don't even notice.
I am not going to sit here and complain . I am going to do some thing to save my mother. I am going to raise my voice. I am going to make a list of those that are trying to stop this rape and also those that are participating in it . When my time comes I will make sure that these rapists are taken to a court and Punjayet ........ you will pay too. If you are just a spectator please run away, if you want to help please sign this petition here
I will be sending a letter to all those that I think are raping my motherland to stop it .I will be sending a letter to all those that are Helping the rapists and I am going to send a letter to all those that are watching , you are all responsible.
Now there is another gang rape, similiar but different . The atrocity is the same , a gangster in Khaki wardi, who has taken ( my motherland ) hostage . He is raping her every day in full view of the world.He has even killed the Punjayet and made his own Punjayet .This punjayet in fact has allowed him to do this . The people that might have complained have been locked up and now there are a 160 million people and my Motherland being Raped again and again by these gangsters .There are some that are with the gangster. There are so many watching that Tamasha . Who is responsible here, who should I go to . The gangsters are gangster . I can't expect anything better from them , but the Punjayet is also saying that he would burn the village down if we don't let him rape your mother.
Doesn't this sound familiar, a country my motherland is being publicly raped by a bunch of Gangsters , ridiculed ,in full view of the world. I am told not to say anything or i will be arrested and today the court says it is okay , It is okay to rape my country ? My mother ?. I wonder what did the Punjayet in Mirwala think when they allowed that rape, must be they were preserving the village from internal strive. How despicable. This is happening and people don't even notice.
I am not going to sit here and complain . I am going to do some thing to save my mother. I am going to raise my voice. I am going to make a list of those that are trying to stop this rape and also those that are participating in it . When my time comes I will make sure that these rapists are taken to a court and Punjayet ........ you will pay too. If you are just a spectator please run away, if you want to help please sign this petition here
I will be sending a letter to all those that I think are raping my motherland to stop it .I will be sending a letter to all those that are Helping the rapists and I am going to send a letter to all those that are watching , you are all responsible.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Delegation to Explain Emergency
I cam across this news , groups like ANNA , APPJ and CDRP as well as PADF and other democratic groups should plan how to not let them have photo opportunity but really explain as to how " Taking the Supreme Court out on the eve of Decision regaridng MUSHES petition Emergency . What constitution are they Upholding Pakistans or Musharrafs
NEW YORK: A three member delegation of the government will leave for US on November 28 to explain the reasons of imposition of emergency following unabated criticism from the international community. The delegation will inform the Pakistani community the steps that compelled the President to impose emergency in the country and evolve US public opinion in favour of emergency. Chairman Cricket Board, Dr Naseem Ashraf, caretaker minister Barrister Saif Ali and former MNA Kashmala Tariq are members of the delegation. The delegation will also attend different ceremonies, the sources said.
NEW YORK: A three member delegation of the government will leave for US on November 28 to explain the reasons of imposition of emergency following unabated criticism from the international community. The delegation will inform the Pakistani community the steps that compelled the President to impose emergency in the country and evolve US public opinion in favour of emergency. Chairman Cricket Board, Dr Naseem Ashraf, caretaker minister Barrister Saif Ali and former MNA Kashmala Tariq are members of the delegation. The delegation will also attend different ceremonies, the sources said.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Add your name to support the demand in comments section
| Citizens Group on Electoral Process & Dialogue Group on Civil-Military Relations: Statement Issued on Saturday November 17, 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Those who don't speak out now are supporting the lawless society in Pakistan
I am impressed by the patriotism and bravery of many Pakistani ordinary citizens .There support and activism is admirable. But missing are a some of the organization of note here in USA. In fact I was very sad to read the press release by Pak-PAC and also a statement of Raza Bokhari The president on APPNA List serv.
Response to Emergency Rule in Pakistan: Distancing from President Musharraf
not in the Best Interest of the United States, Says Raza Bokhari
PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a
statement by Raza Bokhari, president of the Pakistani American Public
Affairs Committee:
The recent extra constitutional steps taken by President Musharraf
resulting in the imposition of a state of emergency in Pakistan remain a
continued target of criticism by U.S. presidential candidates, legislators
and policy makers. While it is true that such extreme measures are rarely
popular, it is quite troubling that there is no note of recognition that
the head of a nation has a fiduciary responsibility to make tough decisions
in the interest of national security in order to preserve and protect the
nation and its citizens.
Even before September 11, 2001, several U.S. presidents had declared
national states of emergency in response to various situations. During the
American Civil War, President Lincoln suspended civil liberties to save the
Union. In 1995 President Clinton declared a limited state of emergency to
deal with the threats of disruption of the Middle East peace process; he
expanded this national emergency in 1998 to order a strike against Osama
Bin Laden.
Since September 11, President Bush has taken several steps through
executive orders and the U.S. Congress has passed laws, notably the NSA
warrant-less surveillance program and Military Commission Act of 2006,
which infringe on civil liberties in the interest of national security. In
addition, U.S. presidents historically have resorted to extra
constitutional measures by issuing Signing Statements when enacting laws in
an attempt to nullify parts of the legislation passed by the Congress.
President Reagan and President Bush Sr. were known to be strong
proponents of the Signing Statements and President Clinton also used them
frequently while in office. There is an ongoing controversy over the
extensive use of Signing Statements by President George W. Bush to modify
the meaning of the law. In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar
Association condemned the use of Signing Statements by the president and
declared them contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of
separation of powers, but nevertheless these Signing Statements remain in
effect.
Besides the United States, which remains in a nominal state of
emergency, countries like Georgia, Israel, Egypt, Syria, the Palestinian
occupied territories, Bangladesh, Guinea, Fiji and Brunei operate in an
ongoing state of emergency. In some of these countries the state of
emergency has been in place for several decades.
It cannot be disputed that in Pakistan there has been an escalating
deterioration of law and order. Besides unwarranted judicial activism led
by the deposed chief justice, law enforcement agencies, the armed forces
and proponents of enlightened moderation are increasingly becoming a target
of terrorism through suicide bombing. There is a resurgence of extremism in
the Northern Western Frontier Province and the Federally Administered
Tribal Areas, forcing the region to the brink of a civil war. Taliban and
Al-Qaeda forces are strengthening their stronghold along the
Pakistan-Afghanistan border and NATO, Pakistani and other coalition forces
have suffered significant loss of troops. These are grave challenges that
make it impossible to resist imposition of a national state of emergency.
There is precedence in Pakistan and the region for taking such an action;
notably in India in 1975.
While pursuit of perfection is an unfinished business and President
Musharraf can and must do more, he has nonetheless been a reliable U.S.
partner in fighting terrorism, promoting enlightened moderation, empowering
women, catalyzing economic growth, fostering permanent peace in the
sub-continent, and is speedily working toward restoring complete democracy
and civilian rule. For the past seven years he has adeptly walked a very
fine line that has resulted in the people of Pakistan beginning to realize
the universally essential value of better relations with the United States.
President Musharraf's abrupt departure from the center stage is neither
in the best interest of us in the United States nor in the best interest of
the people of Pakistan. He is a pivotal anchor for moderate forces and
various stakeholders, such as the armed forces, intelligence agencies,
secular and religious political parties, and global allies to foster a
consensus toward building a secure, stable and a democratic Pakistan.
It is a mistake for us not to recognize that agitation against
President Musharraf and his policies on the streets of Pakistan directly
demonstrate agitation and opposition against the interest of United States
in the region. Suggestions of curtailing economic and military assistance
to Pakistan by some presidential candidates and legislators are not wise at
this time, and will serve only to fuel these agitations and jeopardize U.S.
interests.
We must and should continue to support President Musharraf to lead the
way in fighting terrorism and restoring civilian rule in Pakistan.
Raza Bokhari is president of the Pakistani American Public Affairs
Committee (PAKPAC).
My My ? I can't Believe this because I know Saud Anwer who has been working hard for Pak Pac and is a very sincere Pakistani, I have checked PaK-PAC website the press release also does not even mention the restoration of Judiciary. here
Checking the page indicates they are for the fundamental rights of civil society in USA , against patriot act but are not disturbed by the 160 million people stripped of all their rights with no check or reprieve just so that the King stays in power.This is a travesty that none of the leading organizations that espouse to be For Pakistan don't see the difference between For Pakistan Means People in Pakistan and not The GOP . APPNA which I think should stay as a professional organization but always does make it it's buisness to issue statements is quiet too.Here I urge every one to contact these organisation info@pakpac.net and ed@appna.org .This is like Charagh tale Undhera, I have been fervently calling the news media and bar associations and our own are quiet ( politically) This is moral corruptness. Look at how others are doing Imran Hunger strike, Journalist and lawyers being beaten ,We need to do our part. Call em now please
Israr
Response to Emergency Rule in Pakistan: Distancing from President Musharraf
not in the Best Interest of the United States, Says Raza Bokhari
PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a
statement by Raza Bokhari, president of the Pakistani American Public
Affairs Committee:
The recent extra constitutional steps taken by President Musharraf
resulting in the imposition of a state of emergency in Pakistan remain a
continued target of criticism by U.S. presidential candidates, legislators
and policy makers. While it is true that such extreme measures are rarely
popular, it is quite troubling that there is no note of recognition that
the head of a nation has a fiduciary responsibility to make tough decisions
in the interest of national security in order to preserve and protect the
nation and its citizens.
Even before September 11, 2001, several U.S. presidents had declared
national states of emergency in response to various situations. During the
American Civil War, President Lincoln suspended civil liberties to save the
Union. In 1995 President Clinton declared a limited state of emergency to
deal with the threats of disruption of the Middle East peace process; he
expanded this national emergency in 1998 to order a strike against Osama
Bin Laden.
Since September 11, President Bush has taken several steps through
executive orders and the U.S. Congress has passed laws, notably the NSA
warrant-less surveillance program and Military Commission Act of 2006,
which infringe on civil liberties in the interest of national security. In
addition, U.S. presidents historically have resorted to extra
constitutional measures by issuing Signing Statements when enacting laws in
an attempt to nullify parts of the legislation passed by the Congress.
President Reagan and President Bush Sr. were known to be strong
proponents of the Signing Statements and President Clinton also used them
frequently while in office. There is an ongoing controversy over the
extensive use of Signing Statements by President George W. Bush to modify
the meaning of the law. In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar
Association condemned the use of Signing Statements by the president and
declared them contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of
separation of powers, but nevertheless these Signing Statements remain in
effect.
Besides the United States, which remains in a nominal state of
emergency, countries like Georgia, Israel, Egypt, Syria, the Palestinian
occupied territories, Bangladesh, Guinea, Fiji and Brunei operate in an
ongoing state of emergency. In some of these countries the state of
emergency has been in place for several decades.
It cannot be disputed that in Pakistan there has been an escalating
deterioration of law and order. Besides unwarranted judicial activism led
by the deposed chief justice, law enforcement agencies, the armed forces
and proponents of enlightened moderation are increasingly becoming a target
of terrorism through suicide bombing. There is a resurgence of extremism in
the Northern Western Frontier Province and the Federally Administered
Tribal Areas, forcing the region to the brink of a civil war. Taliban and
Al-Qaeda forces are strengthening their stronghold along the
Pakistan-Afghanistan border and NATO, Pakistani and other coalition forces
have suffered significant loss of troops. These are grave challenges that
make it impossible to resist imposition of a national state of emergency.
There is precedence in Pakistan and the region for taking such an action;
notably in India in 1975.
While pursuit of perfection is an unfinished business and President
Musharraf can and must do more, he has nonetheless been a reliable U.S.
partner in fighting terrorism, promoting enlightened moderation, empowering
women, catalyzing economic growth, fostering permanent peace in the
sub-continent, and is speedily working toward restoring complete democracy
and civilian rule. For the past seven years he has adeptly walked a very
fine line that has resulted in the people of Pakistan beginning to realize
the universally essential value of better relations with the United States.
President Musharraf's abrupt departure from the center stage is neither
in the best interest of us in the United States nor in the best interest of
the people of Pakistan. He is a pivotal anchor for moderate forces and
various stakeholders, such as the armed forces, intelligence agencies,
secular and religious political parties, and global allies to foster a
consensus toward building a secure, stable and a democratic Pakistan.
It is a mistake for us not to recognize that agitation against
President Musharraf and his policies on the streets of Pakistan directly
demonstrate agitation and opposition against the interest of United States
in the region. Suggestions of curtailing economic and military assistance
to Pakistan by some presidential candidates and legislators are not wise at
this time, and will serve only to fuel these agitations and jeopardize U.S.
interests.
We must and should continue to support President Musharraf to lead the
way in fighting terrorism and restoring civilian rule in Pakistan.
Raza Bokhari is president of the Pakistani American Public Affairs
Committee (PAKPAC).
My My ? I can't Believe this because I know Saud Anwer who has been working hard for Pak Pac and is a very sincere Pakistani, I have checked PaK-PAC website the press release also does not even mention the restoration of Judiciary. here
Checking the page indicates they are for the fundamental rights of civil society in USA , against patriot act but are not disturbed by the 160 million people stripped of all their rights with no check or reprieve just so that the King stays in power.This is a travesty that none of the leading organizations that espouse to be For Pakistan don't see the difference between For Pakistan Means People in Pakistan and not The GOP . APPNA which I think should stay as a professional organization but always does make it it's buisness to issue statements is quiet too.Here I urge every one to contact these organisation info@pakpac.net and ed@appna.org .This is like Charagh tale Undhera, I have been fervently calling the news media and bar associations and our own are quiet ( politically) This is moral corruptness. Look at how others are doing Imran Hunger strike, Journalist and lawyers being beaten ,We need to do our part. Call em now please
Israr
Monday, November 19, 2007
CSIS report ,A template for Future Policy.
A Perilous Course: U.S. Strategy and Assistance to Pakistan,
It is a in depth analysis and a projection about Pakistan which in real time is folding like it is being published, It clearly lays out some very good policy strategy guidelines vis a v Pakistan . It is a good read here
I think it would be worth its time and money to now invest in an analysis from a Pakistan national perspective. What would Pakistan need to do to have relation based on its national priorities at the same time taking into account the global priorities.
It is a in depth analysis and a projection about Pakistan which in real time is folding like it is being published, It clearly lays out some very good policy strategy guidelines vis a v Pakistan . It is a good read here
I think it would be worth its time and money to now invest in an analysis from a Pakistan national perspective. What would Pakistan need to do to have relation based on its national priorities at the same time taking into account the global priorities.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Muneer A Malik ( The true Hero )
Muneer A Malik ( I hope Mr Musharraf reads this )
Welcome to this defining moment in the defining moment of our lives. The great American jurist, Benjamin N. Cardozo said, ‘The great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men do not turn aside in their course and pass the judges by’. We are all caught in that same tide today and only our own actions now will determine whether we sink or swim. Those that do not learn from the past are condemned to re-live it. After all, history is the transformation of tumultuous conquerors in to silent footnotes. (Ai khakh nasheeno uth baitho wo waqt kareeb aa pohancha hai- Jub taj uchalay jain gai jub takht girain jain gay. Barthay bhi challo kuttay be challo, bazooo be behot hain sur be behot, up daairay manzil he pay daalainay jain gay”. Hum daikhaayn gay hum daikhaayn gay.
The theme of our Seminar, ‘Separation of Powers and the Independence of the Judiciary’ has always been an age-old favourite of jurists and constitutionalists. But only today, is a true appreciation of its paramount importance being felt throughout the land.
The struggle for the separation of powers and the independence of judiciary is of ancient origin. One of its early foot-soldiers was Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of England from 1613 to 1616. Coke was not always an angel. As a lawyer, he had remained Attorney General of England and prosecuted many cases against innocent people who had incurred the displeasure of King James I. Those poor innocents had no hope of justice and a fair trial. The judiciary was spineless and completely under the influence of the King and his courtiers. The historian Macdowell has described this state of affairs as follows:‘If a Judge in those days had frankly charged a Jury according to the facts of the situation it would have been in such terms as this: ‘If you acquit the prisoner, I shall be dismissed and you will go to prison. Consider your verdict.’ But this bitter experience of blatantly rigged trials left Sir Edward Coke a changed man. He spent the rest of his life wiping off that stain from his reputation. When appointed to the Bench, his judicial independence brought him into direct conflict with the government. King James I was in the habit of interfering with judgments passed by the courts of law; asserting that he was entitled to do so in exercise of his royal prerogative. When Coke refused to yield this power he was summoned by King James I and reminded that the King was supreme and that the King’s word was final in all matters. Coke was not to be cowed down. He bluntly replied that ‘His Majesty was not learned in the laws of England’ and that it was only the Judges who could interpret the law. As far as the question of the King’s supremacy was concerned, he said: ‘The King himself should be under no man, but under God and the Law.’ These words heralded the beginning of England’s transition from a nation under the rule of men to a nation under the Rule of Law. Thereafter, the King wrote to all of the Judges asking them to refrain from hearing and determining a particular matter until the King’s pleasure was known. When Coke proceeded with the hearing in disregard of the King’s instructions, all the Judges were summoned to a meeting with the King. Under pressure, the other Judges buckled down and conceded to the King’s directions; but Coke stood firm in denying the King’s authority to interfere with judicial proceedings. For his impertinence, Sir Edward Coke was dismissed as Chief Justice. Later, at almost seventy years of age, he was thrown in jail. But, today, his legacy forms the bedrock of the Constitutions of every civilized nation.
The doctrine of separation of powers rests upon the recognition that the concentration of absolute power in one man or one body will inevitably lead to exploitation and tyranny. U.S. President Abraham Lincoln recognized the temptation of even good men to succumb to the temptation of too much power when he said: ‘Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.’ The fundamental premise of our Constitution is never to put anyone to that test. The framers of our Constitution were well aware of Lord Acton’s dictum, ‘Power tends to corrupt; and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. Therefore they delegated the different powers of the State to different organs namely; the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Each of them has separate and strictly delineated functions. This trichotomy of powers, as an essential feature of our Constitution, has been repeatedly emphasized by our superior Courts. In his oft-quoted judgment in the celebrated Sharaf Faridi case (PLD 1989 Karachi 404), Saleem Akhtar J. (then a Judge of the Sindh High Court) observed: ‘In a set-up where the Constitution is based on trichotomy of powers, the Judiciary enjoys a unique and supreme position within the framework of the Constitution as it creates balance amongst the various organs of the State and also checks the excessive and arbitrary exercise of power by the Executive and the Legislature… The jurisdiction and the perimeters for exercise of powers by all three organs have been mentioned in definite terms in the Constitution. No organ is permitted to encroach upon the authority of the other and the Judiciary by its power to interpret the Constitution keeps the Legislature and the Executive within the spheres and bounds of the Constitution.’ He further stated: ‘Therefore justice can only be done if there is an independent Judiciary which should be separate from the Executive and not at its mercy or dependent on it.’ Similarly, our Supreme Court has frequently stressed the importance of an independent judiciary, particularly in reference to Article 175 of the Constitution. It observed, inter alia, in the Al-Jehad Trust case (PLD 1996 SC 324) and the Mehram Ali case (PLD 1998 SC 1445) that ‘the independence of judiciary is inextricably linked and connected with the process of appointment of Judges and the security of tenure and other terms and conditions,’ and that the ‘framers of the Constitution were mindful of the fact that in the absence of security of tenure no Judge can function impartially and independently.’ In the absence of an independent judiciary that is able to freely exercise its judicial functions and enforce the law without interference, the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to citizens under our Constitution are illusory and not worth the paper they are written on. Saleem Akhtar J held as much in the case of Govt. of Balochistan v. Azizullah Memon (PLD 1993 SC 341) when he observed: ‘Separation of judiciary is the corner-stone of the independence of judiciary and unless the judiciary is independent, the fundamental right of access to justice cannot be guaranteed.’ Now the main danger facing Pakistan today is the tendency towards monopolization and concentration of all state power in one body. This lust for unrivalled power and ultimate authority destroys all those institutions that form the foundations of a modern civilized state. Baron de Montesquieu, one of the first proponents of the doctrine of separation of powers, was of the view that: ‘In the infancy of societies, the chiefs of state shape its institutions; later the institutions shape the chiefs of state.’ Charles De Gaulle had paraphrased it somewhat differently when he said “that some countries need an army but some armies need a state”. What is at stake here? Is it the future of my two children, Sheherezade and Ehsan or the children or grandchildren of every one sitting in this room and beyond. I beg you, I implore you, that let every man look into his inner self and ask “Is my conscience on a higher plane than 30 pieces of silver?” Pakistan needs to make that transition urgently. We must strengthen our institutions so that we are ruled by law and not by men. We can no longer afford to remain an infant state. A failure to move on could be fatal. Revolutions, in every age stem from the same causes. However, the American Revolution was unique in that the revolutionaries actually listed the causes of the Revolution in their Declaration of Independence. I was taken aback to find the following passage in the American Declaration of Independence (remember, this is back in 1776): ‘The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States… He has made Judges dependent upon his will alone, for the tenure of their offices and the amount of their salaries’. If we want to ward off similar revolutions in different parts of our country, if we want to avoid a further break-up of the nation, if we want to prevent a decline into anarchy; we must learn our lessons from history.
Fortunately, our nation has woken up to this peril. There is unanimity within the legal community and the general public that the ideals of the separation of powers and independence of judiciary are worth preserving. That the Rule of Law is not merely an empty slogan; but a reality worth striving towards. Montesquieu had warned, ‘The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.’ We have averted the greater danger. We are only left with the lesser threat. And now that the people are woken from their slumber and apathy; their will shall prevail. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court pointed out, ‘Constitutions and statutes don’t protect judicial independence, people do.’ But the people Justice Sandra Day O’Connor referred to were not simply members of the general public. She was also referring to people who practice at the Bar. She was also referring to the people who man the Bench. Judges, like the rest of us, also form a part of Pakistan’s civil society. There is a mutual covenant between all sections of civil society to uphold the Rule of Law and secure the independence of the judiciary. Any section that betrays this mutual trust, in addition to injuring the others, also imperils itself. Benjamin Cardozo had ventured to reflect that judges do not live in ivory towers protected against tides in the affairs of men. Moreover, unlike the executive branch of government, the judiciary has no coercive apparatus to ensure the enforcement of its writ. Rather, its strength, its prestige, its power and hence its very existence, rests solely upon the confidence reposed in it by the public. That confidence is not to be lightly risked. I dare to dream the impossible dream and to run where the brave dare not go. This is our quest- no matter how hopeless no matter how far. Remember that every long journey begins with a single step. My Lord, the Chief Justice who would have thought that after the 9th of March you would in our midst today in this very auditorium presiding over this seminar? May the wind be always at your back and may the road rise up to meet you and may Allah Almighty hold you in the palm of His hand. It does not take rocket science to understand the no army, no matter of which breed, can stop the march of an idea the time for which has come.Pakistan Zindabad, Pakistan Paindabad!
Welcome to this defining moment in the defining moment of our lives. The great American jurist, Benjamin N. Cardozo said, ‘The great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men do not turn aside in their course and pass the judges by’. We are all caught in that same tide today and only our own actions now will determine whether we sink or swim. Those that do not learn from the past are condemned to re-live it. After all, history is the transformation of tumultuous conquerors in to silent footnotes. (Ai khakh nasheeno uth baitho wo waqt kareeb aa pohancha hai- Jub taj uchalay jain gai jub takht girain jain gay. Barthay bhi challo kuttay be challo, bazooo be behot hain sur be behot, up daairay manzil he pay daalainay jain gay”. Hum daikhaayn gay hum daikhaayn gay.
The theme of our Seminar, ‘Separation of Powers and the Independence of the Judiciary’ has always been an age-old favourite of jurists and constitutionalists. But only today, is a true appreciation of its paramount importance being felt throughout the land.
The struggle for the separation of powers and the independence of judiciary is of ancient origin. One of its early foot-soldiers was Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of England from 1613 to 1616. Coke was not always an angel. As a lawyer, he had remained Attorney General of England and prosecuted many cases against innocent people who had incurred the displeasure of King James I. Those poor innocents had no hope of justice and a fair trial. The judiciary was spineless and completely under the influence of the King and his courtiers. The historian Macdowell has described this state of affairs as follows:‘If a Judge in those days had frankly charged a Jury according to the facts of the situation it would have been in such terms as this: ‘If you acquit the prisoner, I shall be dismissed and you will go to prison. Consider your verdict.’ But this bitter experience of blatantly rigged trials left Sir Edward Coke a changed man. He spent the rest of his life wiping off that stain from his reputation. When appointed to the Bench, his judicial independence brought him into direct conflict with the government. King James I was in the habit of interfering with judgments passed by the courts of law; asserting that he was entitled to do so in exercise of his royal prerogative. When Coke refused to yield this power he was summoned by King James I and reminded that the King was supreme and that the King’s word was final in all matters. Coke was not to be cowed down. He bluntly replied that ‘His Majesty was not learned in the laws of England’ and that it was only the Judges who could interpret the law. As far as the question of the King’s supremacy was concerned, he said: ‘The King himself should be under no man, but under God and the Law.’ These words heralded the beginning of England’s transition from a nation under the rule of men to a nation under the Rule of Law. Thereafter, the King wrote to all of the Judges asking them to refrain from hearing and determining a particular matter until the King’s pleasure was known. When Coke proceeded with the hearing in disregard of the King’s instructions, all the Judges were summoned to a meeting with the King. Under pressure, the other Judges buckled down and conceded to the King’s directions; but Coke stood firm in denying the King’s authority to interfere with judicial proceedings. For his impertinence, Sir Edward Coke was dismissed as Chief Justice. Later, at almost seventy years of age, he was thrown in jail. But, today, his legacy forms the bedrock of the Constitutions of every civilized nation.
The doctrine of separation of powers rests upon the recognition that the concentration of absolute power in one man or one body will inevitably lead to exploitation and tyranny. U.S. President Abraham Lincoln recognized the temptation of even good men to succumb to the temptation of too much power when he said: ‘Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.’ The fundamental premise of our Constitution is never to put anyone to that test. The framers of our Constitution were well aware of Lord Acton’s dictum, ‘Power tends to corrupt; and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. Therefore they delegated the different powers of the State to different organs namely; the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Each of them has separate and strictly delineated functions. This trichotomy of powers, as an essential feature of our Constitution, has been repeatedly emphasized by our superior Courts. In his oft-quoted judgment in the celebrated Sharaf Faridi case (PLD 1989 Karachi 404), Saleem Akhtar J. (then a Judge of the Sindh High Court) observed: ‘In a set-up where the Constitution is based on trichotomy of powers, the Judiciary enjoys a unique and supreme position within the framework of the Constitution as it creates balance amongst the various organs of the State and also checks the excessive and arbitrary exercise of power by the Executive and the Legislature… The jurisdiction and the perimeters for exercise of powers by all three organs have been mentioned in definite terms in the Constitution. No organ is permitted to encroach upon the authority of the other and the Judiciary by its power to interpret the Constitution keeps the Legislature and the Executive within the spheres and bounds of the Constitution.’ He further stated: ‘Therefore justice can only be done if there is an independent Judiciary which should be separate from the Executive and not at its mercy or dependent on it.’ Similarly, our Supreme Court has frequently stressed the importance of an independent judiciary, particularly in reference to Article 175 of the Constitution. It observed, inter alia, in the Al-Jehad Trust case (PLD 1996 SC 324) and the Mehram Ali case (PLD 1998 SC 1445) that ‘the independence of judiciary is inextricably linked and connected with the process of appointment of Judges and the security of tenure and other terms and conditions,’ and that the ‘framers of the Constitution were mindful of the fact that in the absence of security of tenure no Judge can function impartially and independently.’ In the absence of an independent judiciary that is able to freely exercise its judicial functions and enforce the law without interference, the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to citizens under our Constitution are illusory and not worth the paper they are written on. Saleem Akhtar J held as much in the case of Govt. of Balochistan v. Azizullah Memon (PLD 1993 SC 341) when he observed: ‘Separation of judiciary is the corner-stone of the independence of judiciary and unless the judiciary is independent, the fundamental right of access to justice cannot be guaranteed.’ Now the main danger facing Pakistan today is the tendency towards monopolization and concentration of all state power in one body. This lust for unrivalled power and ultimate authority destroys all those institutions that form the foundations of a modern civilized state. Baron de Montesquieu, one of the first proponents of the doctrine of separation of powers, was of the view that: ‘In the infancy of societies, the chiefs of state shape its institutions; later the institutions shape the chiefs of state.’ Charles De Gaulle had paraphrased it somewhat differently when he said “that some countries need an army but some armies need a state”. What is at stake here? Is it the future of my two children, Sheherezade and Ehsan or the children or grandchildren of every one sitting in this room and beyond. I beg you, I implore you, that let every man look into his inner self and ask “Is my conscience on a higher plane than 30 pieces of silver?” Pakistan needs to make that transition urgently. We must strengthen our institutions so that we are ruled by law and not by men. We can no longer afford to remain an infant state. A failure to move on could be fatal. Revolutions, in every age stem from the same causes. However, the American Revolution was unique in that the revolutionaries actually listed the causes of the Revolution in their Declaration of Independence. I was taken aback to find the following passage in the American Declaration of Independence (remember, this is back in 1776): ‘The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States… He has made Judges dependent upon his will alone, for the tenure of their offices and the amount of their salaries’. If we want to ward off similar revolutions in different parts of our country, if we want to avoid a further break-up of the nation, if we want to prevent a decline into anarchy; we must learn our lessons from history.
Fortunately, our nation has woken up to this peril. There is unanimity within the legal community and the general public that the ideals of the separation of powers and independence of judiciary are worth preserving. That the Rule of Law is not merely an empty slogan; but a reality worth striving towards. Montesquieu had warned, ‘The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.’ We have averted the greater danger. We are only left with the lesser threat. And now that the people are woken from their slumber and apathy; their will shall prevail. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court pointed out, ‘Constitutions and statutes don’t protect judicial independence, people do.’ But the people Justice Sandra Day O’Connor referred to were not simply members of the general public. She was also referring to people who practice at the Bar. She was also referring to the people who man the Bench. Judges, like the rest of us, also form a part of Pakistan’s civil society. There is a mutual covenant between all sections of civil society to uphold the Rule of Law and secure the independence of the judiciary. Any section that betrays this mutual trust, in addition to injuring the others, also imperils itself. Benjamin Cardozo had ventured to reflect that judges do not live in ivory towers protected against tides in the affairs of men. Moreover, unlike the executive branch of government, the judiciary has no coercive apparatus to ensure the enforcement of its writ. Rather, its strength, its prestige, its power and hence its very existence, rests solely upon the confidence reposed in it by the public. That confidence is not to be lightly risked. I dare to dream the impossible dream and to run where the brave dare not go. This is our quest- no matter how hopeless no matter how far. Remember that every long journey begins with a single step. My Lord, the Chief Justice who would have thought that after the 9th of March you would in our midst today in this very auditorium presiding over this seminar? May the wind be always at your back and may the road rise up to meet you and may Allah Almighty hold you in the palm of His hand. It does not take rocket science to understand the no army, no matter of which breed, can stop the march of an idea the time for which has come.Pakistan Zindabad, Pakistan Paindabad!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
