Foot in Mouth Award 2010: Justice Ad-hoc Khalil ul Rehman Ramday

The Foot in Mouth award is awarded each year by the Plain English Campaign for a baffling comment in English language by a prominent figure. The comment can be inappropriate for being queer in grammar or content or both. The English proverb after which the award is named, 'foot in the mouth', simply means a distasteful or foul oration. The proverb I believe is self explanatory. It further goes without saying that if similar award was to be given in Pakistan, despite tough competition from Chief Justice Lahore High Court Khwaja Sharif, the outright winner would be Justice Khalil ul Rehman Ramday. While all of his golden quotes can fill volumes, some select few and their apparent fallacy or foolishness have been reproduced here to impress his exemplary personality upon the readers.

Not few days ago,

Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday said in his remarks, " the courts had been left with no task but to pocket insults." October 2010

So sir, you do finally realise your public standing? Had you paid a bit more attention to serving the people of Pakistan than focusing on lynching their elected representatives day and night, you would be receiving some accolades, but since you are not doing so, enjoying your well deserved share of insults.

He also observed,

“CJP Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was held by hair and dragged, but we did not take any action. Whenever such an incident takes place, a strategy is adopted with wisdom. We did not take revenge on anyone for what happened with us after March 9, 2007,” October 2010

Are you suggesting that in following the course of law you did me or the people of Pakistan a favor? The fact that why the Chief Justice of Pakistan did not get a FIR registered is another matter.

Another member of the bench, Justice Ramday said that wherever judges try to raise their heads, they are immediately showered with hammers. September 28, 2010.

When did they raise their heads? Can you quote one incident other than 9th March? Also, may I suggest that you refrain from basking in CJP Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudry's glory, using it to put yourself on a pedestal.

Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday said: “We judges cannot sit as silent onlookers if someone is committing suicide before us.” 30 September, 2010

What?! Didn't you guys do exactly that during the eight year Mush rule? Yes, before your sudden awakening! When all the banks, flour, sugar and rice mills, stocks in power plants, PTCL, KESC and many other institutions had been given away in shady privatisation deals and stock market had crashed twice.

These two quotes both part of the 18th amendment case proceedings, in response to different arguments pertaining to the amendment with respect to appointment of judges.

Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday remarked that the judiciary was separated and detached from the executive, but now the latter’s role was being enhanced while in the UK, the executive’s role was minimised in appointments.

“Judge is appointed by the Senate in US. But here in Pakistan ground realities will have to be looked into,” Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday remarked.

So sir, do you think people of Pakistan are stupid? We are not ignorant fools, heads-I-win, tails-you-lose is not going work. Be ethical and pick a side.

Justice Ramday cited in a judgment that Article 248 came up for interpretation in Ch Zahur Ilahi’s case (PLD 1975 SC 383), which stated the scope and the operational area of the said provision as “...the immunity provisions must, in accordance with the accepted principles of interpretation, be construed strictly and unless persons claiming the immunity comes strictly within the terms of the provisions granting the immunity, the immunity cannot be extended. The immunity is in the nature of an exception to the general rule that no one is above the law.”

The matter was further explained thus: “Hence, since neither the Constitution nor any law can possibly authorise him to commit a criminal act or do anything which is contrary to law, the immunity cannot extend to illegal or unconstitutional acts.”

Okay, so the immunity extends only when you convict people for actions permissible under law, got it!


On the formation of a judicial commission Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday said, during a hearing

‘Thank God that our ministers and bureaucrats are honest and angels. The sheer fault lies only with the judges; hence, they must be set right.’

No sir they aren't but the bureaucracy is not (directly) governed by the Constitution, hence their appointment was not covered in the eighteenth amendment. Seems you missed out on some crucial lessons at law school. As for the ministers, why do you question their eligibility, did you yourself not say in Court that it was up to nation to decide to whom they wanted to see as judge or otherwise. So why do you not honour their decision when it is not in your favour.


At a different date he further remarked,

The judiciary had rendered sacrifices, judges faced detention and hunger along with their children and had to let go numerous competent brother judges by way of the July 31 verdict (for taking oath under the PCO) only to save the democratic system. But, he said, the hands of the same judiciary were being tied.

Honourable sir, you with your fellow lordships suffered four months of detention in your house with your families. This was done at the hands of a dictator whom you strengthened and served unconditionally for eight years. For such support you deserve a minimum of life imprisonment. Moreover, while you walked hand in hand with the dictator, hundreds of politicians and political workers were tortured until they changed loyalties.

Should your logic be accepted why don't you give the political leadership of the country a free pass they have earned as per your logic? Each one of them has sacrificed more than the entire judiciary put together.


But above all his quote for which he truly deserves an award is his outright admission in the Court, ten days before the 3rd November emergency, while Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan was pleading the case of Justice Retired Wajihuddin.

“I am not ashamed if I had taken the oath under the PCO,” Justice Ramday observed. “We have made our country, its institutions and the Constitution a matter of laughing stock in the world.” He said that whatever ‘burble and verbal jugglery’ might be behind the changes made since 1977 in the Constitution, the country had been ruled under the Constitution.“But we sit here and waste days and weeks trying to understand (interpreting things).”

Sir, this was at the peak of the historic lawyers movement. You had the audacity to not only defend your oath under the PCO but also question why should you be ashamed. One is forced to wonder that had you been offered an oath by Musharraf again, would you have stood by Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry?


While, his lack of shame on committing treason deserves recognition, it is for his persistent shamelessness two years on that we award him Foot in Mouth.

Justice Ramday recalled that, "all the validations accorded by the judiciary were temporary in nature, but asked why the one who committed treason by abrogating the Constitution and the institution (parliament) which indemnified such actions had not been touched, but the judiciary was being singled out unnecessarily."

“All the subsequent abrogation and martial laws were not only accepted by the people but also given permanency by political leaders,” the judge regretted.

He said the 8th Amendment was one such example when the 1985 parliament indemnified all extra-constitutional actions taken by Gen Ziaul Haq.

“Why did the parliamentarians not stand up by refusing to validate Ziaul Haq’s martial law if the judiciary had given a wrong decision in the Nusrat Bhutto case?” Justice Ramday asked. He also cited the Zafar Ali Shah case in which the judiciary had given three years’ time to Gen Pervez Musharraf to hold elections.

Mr Ramday in his desperation has forgotten that the eighth amendment ratification by the sham parliament was challenged by Benazir Bhutto in Courts as it was un-Constitutional for being even the house so elected was unicameral in nature. He has also forgotten the non-partisan elections of Zia, the low voter turnout and the suppression of people by the dictator. Both the eighth amendment and the seventeenth amendments were carried out by parliaments which were a result of heavily rigged elections, yet you would go to any length to deny any blame on your part.

For all the above comments and your lack of shame in putting such thoughts into words, you deserve Pakistan's first Foot in Mouth Award. Congratulations!!

LHC Justice: Bail for Sohail Zia Butt, conviction for Rehman Malik!

The honourable judges of the Lahore High Court continue to leave no stone unturned in disgracing the institution of judiciary in Pakistan. On 11th October 2010 the court granted bail to the PML-N leader Sohail Zia Butt and suspended his three year sentence given in absentia.

The verdict is in line with every verdict given in Pakistan and worldwide. Verdicts pronounced in absentia are procedurally rescinded and sentences suspended pending appeals and retrials, the verdict follows all precedents except one.

Not six months ago, due to the ‘increasingly deteriorating situation in the country’ the LHC took a novel step by upholding the conviction of interior minister Rehman Malik. His bail was terminated and an arrest warrant issued. This was done by the independent judiciary in the name of setting an example, certainly it wanted to set examples it had no intention of following.

The fact that the conviction of Rehman Malik was done in absentia was ignored. The bench observed in its order while dismissing the minister’s appeals that, “after conviction, if a person is not taken into custody or not admitted to bail, such a person is deemed to be fugitive of law and would not be entitled to any relief.” It was in this scenario that President Zardari was forced to pardon Mr Rehman Malik, him being denied a fair trial in broad daylight.

The news published in Dawn News:

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday released PML-N leader Sohail Zia Butt on bail. The court also suspended the three-year-long prison sentence given to him by an accountability court.

The Accountability Court in Lahore had sentenced former MPA of the Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz to prison.

He had been arrested by the National Accountability Bureau on September 1 over his alleged involvement in a National Industrial Cooperative Corporation scam.

The PML-N had termed the arrest of Butt, who is Nawaz Sharif’s brother-in-law, as “politically motivated and illegal”.

President’s Immunity!!

THE endless discussion about the Supreme Court’s authority to interpret the constitutional clauses pertaining to presidential immunity is mind-boggling. Interpretation is required where ambiguity exists.

However, the concept of presidential immunity which we have adopted from English law by virtue of article 248 of the Constitution of 1973 is unambiguous and clear.

Attempts by certain analysts and experts to limit its application to acts done in capacity of the president are also shocking.

The presidential immunity, which is the reflection of sovereign immunity granted to heads of state has always extended to all acts as long as the person remains in office.

The French courts do not take action against Sarkozy for acts like his alleged involvement in the submarine scandal, allegedly done while he was not the president and the Sudanese president is not arrested anywhere around the world despite an International Criminal Court warrant due to his sovereign immunity, for violations he did while in office, as long as he is the president.

President Zardari is the lawfully elected president and is as such immune from any legal action.

While the general public would love the dramatics of conviction of a sitting president, such pleasure at the cost of virtual suspension of an article in the Constitution is a heavy price.

The repeated swearing of allegiances by various socio-political figures to the government or the Supreme Court is self evident of the travesty of the situation since there is only one side in this supposed battle, the Constitution.

Published in Daily Dawn on 29-09-2010

A Tale of Two Visits!

Badalta Hai Rung Aasmaan Kaisay Kaisay is a famous verse of Aatish's couplet that has become a cliche in Urdu political writings. Yet I found out today that cliches are cliches for a reason.

The full couplet goes as follows,

zameen-e-chamn gul khilati hai kia kia,
badalta hai rang aasmaan kaise kaise!

A rough translation would be

Of kinds, flowers in the gardens bloom Of kinds, the sky changes colors

In response to this are presented another couplet by Amir Minai which is likewise now a cliche,

hoay naam war be-nishaan kaise kaise,
zameen kha gayee aasmaan kaise kaise

A rough translation would be,

Became fabled, the unknown, unnamed, The earth swallowed the skies so famed.

The couplets are timeless as we witnessed recently once again. The unknown and unnamed have gained thrones, became kings and then suffered humiliation at the behest of those who so eagerly cheered their coronation. The most recent example of this was the recent visit by the Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry to Quetta.

This was not his first visit, he had visited Quetta before, Quetta being his hometown. He had also visited Quetta about two years back on 31st March 2008. He was deposed at the time and came on the invitation of Balochistan Bar Association. Upon arrival he was welcomed by thousands of citizens, lawyers and women and children who had their fathers, brothers and sons taken away by the intelligence agencies. The Chief Justice was their only hope, he was their hero and had fought and lost his office for their cause the missing persons case. He had stood up against the establishment and summoned the all powerful representatives of Military Intelligence and ISI to the Supreme Court. The slogan of 'Chief tere jaN nisar, beshumar beshumar' echoed the main Quetta road as his caravan took hours to reach the Balochistan High Court. But this was two years ago!

On 12th June 2010, more than two years after his previous visit and more than one year after his reinstatement he visited his hometown again. This time there were no crowds, no hoards of lawyers jumping over each other to shake his hand but I guess that is understandable. You cannot expect a sitting Chief Justice to be acting like a political leader, indeed his office is above politics. The only place he can make an address is the bar associations. The Chief Justice was joined in by the Chief Justices of all four provinces. The electronic media dutifully aired his speech at the convention. What they did not air was the pictures of the audience. Why?

Because the audience was limited. A news which the media at large conveniently forgot to relay is the strike call by Balochistan Bar Association to protest his visit to the city. The sparsely populated convention venue, lack of attendance by lawyers and lack of enthusiasm was not a mere coincidence. It was a protest!


The same lawyers who were boycotting courts for his reinstatement are doing so to protest his arrival in the city. They are angered at his lack of interest in the missing persons case, the courts comments that the evidence against intelligence forces will not be examined and his indifference to the plight of people of Balochistan. This is not what they fought for. They had no corporate clients like the lawyers of Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad with hefty fees to pay for their living but they did not appear in front of courts which they deemed unconstitutional. They did not violate the directives of their leaders of Lawyers' Movement at the cost of personal suffering to themselves and their families. All for what?! They ask themselves today as the man who sits in the white marble mausoleum of justice has abandoned them.

The Chief Justice in his visit hoped that the lawyers community of Pakistan and Balochistan stood once for the rule of law and Constitutionalism and he expected them to do it again if need be. We salute the lawyers of Balochistan Bar Association, who have today made it clear that they will stand for rule of law, no matter the who leads the opposing forces. So Honourable sir, be careful what you wish for, lest it come true!

The return of the Doctrine of Necessity!!

After the democratically elected parliament that represents the wishes of people of Pakistan passed the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan unanimously. It was hoped that it would bring peace, stability and normalcy in the functioning of this Federation that is desperately needed. With the Constitution back into its original state and most of the short-comings removed the nation took a breath of sigh.

Their peace, it seems was short-lived as the guardians of Constitution it looks, have after all not mend their old ways.

What is going on in the Supreme Court of Pakistan is tremendous. The basic law of the country is under threat! Of course this is not the first time this will happen therein, the courts have done it plenty of times to validate the martial laws of military dictators, when they suspended the Constitution they were sworn to protect.

But today there is no military dictator on who's behest this is being done (at least not openly). The independent judges are doing it on their own. They are deciding whether the Constitution is Constitutional or not? In the absence of their old cheat code aka doctrine of necessity they have found refuge in a new doctrine called the doctrine of basic structure. Since they had no Constitutional ground they seek refuge in a doctrine that has been rejected by the courts of Pakistan over and over again but obviously those courts were not as 'azaad' or independent as these ones.


Yet they did reject it over and over again, during democracies and dictatorships. Because those men, traitors some of them may have been, established a line, in ignorance or consciousness I know not. But every act was to be validated by the parliament to gain legality. No matter how many days had gone by, eighth and then seventeenth amendment were passed to legalize everything. To make it Constitutional, since Constitution of Pakistan can only be changed by the parliament of Pakistan and no other institution.

In exercise of its powers the Constitution was changed by the parliament once again in April 2010. It was challenged in the Supreme Court, but instead of dismissing the petitions the Court accepted them and officially disposed the shield of sanctity that surrounds the Constitution. But the question that baffles me is that if indeed the court decides that a single section of the Constitution is to be suspended, will the Supreme Court be committing high treason?

Did we not agree that be it Musharraf or Dogar or any other judge or general, the Constitution cannot be amended by anyone save the parliament? The article 175A is now part of the Constitution and no matter how many judges or lawyers or media anchors want, can it be altered, suspended or deleted, save by the parliament of Pakistan. Any attempt to do so would be high treason under the article 6 of the Constitution of Pakistan and the government would be duty bound to protect it and act against those who tried to subvert it.

So will Chief Justice Iftikhar commit high treason once again and become the first civilian to suspend(in whole or in part) the Constitution of Pakistan? Will he join the ranks of Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf, it seems unlikely in any other country but lest we forget this is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan!!

Cricket at the Courthouse!!

What happened in the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the 24th and 25th May 2010 was some brilliant politics by President Zardari, which despite my avid support of PPP I had never expected of him. It was cunning yet simple. In fact what he did was a nine year old's trick that resulted in the judges and media getting caught in public unaware, with their pants down. Here is what happened, in full view:

Judiciary:

A couple of weeks before 24th, the judges coincidently decide to hear the following cases one after another,

1: NRO review petion
2: Review of 18th amendment
3: NRO implementation case

What a mighty display of strength would it be?! The judges will set an example and show these crooks their rightful place, they will be mocked about in broad daylight. We will ridicule their arguments, which shall make headlines. On rhetoric not reason we shall decide but decisions will be made, it matters not who is being punished as long as some one is being punished. So what if our blatant disregard for law in convicting Rehman Malik was spoiled by Zardari, we will show them who's the boss.

Statements are made, from the two towers of Lahore and Islamabad under the shadow casted from the heart of Pindi. "If heavens fall, so be it; justice shall be served," roars Islamabad, "we are with you, your soldiers! united under your command" retorts Lahore (right now on some brief excursion to another of those petty bar associations). Enough fodder is provided to the media, armor is strapped on, judges assembled and orders from the pit of doom in Pindi in hand, countdown to May 24th begins!

Media:

"Hail thou mighty, thee is our only saviour." I am not praying to God but that is what is going on or rather was going on until a few days back in the media. Every statement of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and LHC is the first headline. All the six major Urdu channels go into a trance, not unlike that of Shoaib and Sania's wedding (duh don't you get it?! It is the eighteenth amendment, yes, happening for the eighteenth time where as Shoaib-Sania's wedding is a first). So yes it will be the first headline on the news, on the newspapers and the most frequented piece on the newsticker that runs on the bottom of your screen.

All columnists write about the magnamity of the Chief Justice and his pure intentions. How the Pakistan Peoples Party under Zardari is being stubborn and if BB was alive she would have done things differently (that is why we were talking ill about her until the day she died)? How Zardari is mistaken in trusting Babar Awan and Rehman Malik when he should be trusting maybe Hamid Mir and Shaheen Sehbai? The daily batch of two dozen programs start airing war chants, predicting an impending clash which shall finally call it a day for the current setup. With dearth of people with integrity available to support their cause, non-representatives like Qazi Anwar, Imran Khan and a long list of the PML-Q members are invited to comment on the government's unacceptable attitude towards the judiciary. The matters pertaining to ordinary citizens are forgotten, this jive by judges is what matters, or so the boss said.

Government:

To the annoyance of many, PPP personnel on talkshows remain a mood kill. There are sporadic accusations against the obvious bias by that Abidi guy and Ms Wahab but nothing concrete, nothing tangible. Then what? Media prays hard and their prayers are answered, Babar Awan delivers a defiant speech in support of the President lambasting his critics with Maula Bakhsh Chandio joining in the frenzy to defend the Presdient. Everything makes headlines and the discourse of talk shows that air eight o'clock onwards. PPP though keeps playing dumb and it starts getting annoying for all including many in their own ranks I'm certain.

As the day nears, Prime minister calls up Chief Justice, to assure him of full cooperation. The media is immediately divided, half the channels consider his inappropriate behaviour on the part of the PM and the other half resort to the old rebellion against Zardari mantra.

Day 1: The beginning

24th of May is here, the government lawyers are not prepared. They request withdrawl of their plea, then eventually ask time to reconsider. Similar proceedings take place in the sitting on Eighteenth Constitutional amendment. The lawyers representing the Federation seek refuge under some article which requires that they be officially informed about the need to file a reply, which according to all legal minds was not required in this case. Either way, the judges are forced to give time to the Federation's lawyers who are now dubbed by all lawyers coming on tv as complete morons for over looking such an obvious legal clause. Still tomorrow is another day, in fact the real showdown, fireworks may still happen.


Day 2: The (anti)climax

The judges are in the courts, the lawyers, the media and anyone else who can be there is there. Cameras roll as the cars pull into the driveway. Babar Awan flanked by a dozen ministers, walks in. The judges are all ready to bat, they jump a couple of times,
stretch out their muscles, the grip is straightened out, gloves are restrained and tightened, helmet is positioned, this ball will be a six, they huddle up to nervous their oppponents, the crowd begins cheering as Awan paces to deliver, the crowds cheer harder, commentators blabber, momentum peaks as the bowler approaches to deliver and when he does, he delivers a wide ball. The climax is an anti-climax, there are more balls to come but these batsmen are no Bradman, with the momentum gone, the media discredited and judiciary effectively disgraced by themselves tomorrow may now be another day but it surely will not be this one!

Plenipotent!! Rule of law or rule of judges

The lawyers’ movement beginning on 9th March 2007 and ending after the restoration of judges on 16th March 2009 was a major milestone in the struggle for rule of law by people of Pakistan. However, little that goes on in the corridors of power of our or any nation is as black and white we would like it to be. For it is clear, that the judges that occupy the benches today have an agenda that steers away from justice and rule of law. The consistent disregard for ethical principles, maxims of law, judicial principles have now given way to blatant violations of Constitution itself.

Sensationalizing of issues

The Lords as I shall call them for I fear being charged for contempt of Court that the courts are so eager to convict for, have developed a practice of sensationalizing the issues at hand. The verdicts are delivered on Friday just like the movies were released in the good old days of Lollywood. The NRO verdict was an exception but the date ‘coincidentally’ chosen for that verdict stood out for other reasons. The people of Pakistan remained glued to screens for hours as the judges took a recess, after they had already reached the verdict. After further hours of deliberation and ensuring that every businessman and investor has been panicked to the hilt, confidence of the nation shaken, a verdict which was expected all along was announced but the damage had been done.

Statements by Judges

The Lords have also developed a habit of giving remarks that are unprecedented. The remarks by judges that have been published as head lines over the year outnumber those by the President or the Prime minister. The remarks are not confined to those given during the proceedings of the Court but also in seminars and visits to the bar associations. That the judge shall speak through his verdicts is apparently not applicable on our Lords, who seem to have taken a leaf from the villainous old hags in the stories of Khawaateen Digest.

Disregard for ethical norms

The Lord are devoid any concept of ethics that need to be observed in the workings of judiciary. The blatant disregard for the principle of seniority was observed in the promotion of Justice Saqib Nisar to the Supreme Court. However, more questionable was that the ethical principle of having parity between provinces was also not observed. The most senior judge after Khwaja Sharif was Chief Justice Peshawar High Court Justice Ijaz Afzal Khan. It may have been Khwaja Shairf's prerogative to forgo his right but who made the right transferable? Since, one of the two retiring justices was from Peshawar it made sense that he should be sent to Supreme Court. This was not done, making the court acutely imbalanced in terms of ethnic background.

Soldiers of the Chief Justice

The Lords also have decided that it is about time that they should get rid of the ethics regarding the judicial principles where a judge shall not be influence in any way by any other judge. When the President promoted Justice Khwaja Sharif to Supreme Court, a bench was immediately formed to stall the notification. The formation of bench at such short notice, questionable in itself was none the less constitutional. What was not constitutional was the fact that all Justices of the Supreme Court were summoned to Islamabad, where they reportedly met the very next day. The judges met, chatted and in presence of one of the party to the case Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudary apparently reached a verdict in absence of the other party i.e. the government of Pakistan. The following morning the Constitution was further disgraced by its custodians when the judges of Lahore High Court did not hold courts. Whether they officially applied for a leave that the civil court judges did is unclear. They did not however, perform their Constitutional duties. Other notable violations of judicial principles have been the declaration of Judges being the soldiers of CJ Iftikhar and the more notorious talk of chain of command in judiciary being headed by the Chief Justice himself.

Onus of proof

In any judicial system the onus of proof is on the accuser and only after some evidence has been presented against the accused he would be asked to refute the allegation. This was not to be in the case of Jamshed Dasti. The Lords apparently in the absence of substantial evidence decided to take a pop quiz. Asked to recite a few verses and the tables of two he got confused and announced his resignation there by dismissing the case. The Lords assumed the role of the prosecutor and became party to the case showing little regard for rules of law. Justice was not served.

The act of the Court also bordered on violation of the article 13 (b) of the Constitution of 1973, as per which,

No person
shall, when accused of an offence, be compelled to be a witness against himself.

NRO verdict

The Lords verdict on 16 December 2009 was judiciary sans grace. The verdict was due to be announced but then delayed as is the practice of the current Court. Reports of shutters being pulled down in Sindh and Balochistan started pouring in and eventually after bringing the nation to the brink of a break down the verdict was delivered.

Much has been written about the poor quality of jurisprudence shown in the verdict but that is another matter. The manner how it was all handled is purely dramatic, was there a need to have a full court? Whether it was right for the Supreme Court to answer questions that were not asked in the petitions? When the Supreme Court itself was on a spree to give free judicial cum Islamic advice in its 300 page verdict, was it not the duty of the Court to clarify its position on the Presidential Indemnity? Why was it that thousands of words were written recounting Suharto, Marcos and others, quotations of Maududi and others but not one word regarding the very article 248 of the Constitution that would need to be interpreted should the cases be reopened? The intention was clearly malafide.

Selective Justice

The Lords may not be hearing cases selectively but it is certainly one hell of a coincidence that the lucky draw always spits out a PPP name. Be it Rehman Malik, Pervaiz Ashraf, Babar Awan, Latif Khosa or any other PPP member, they always get the summons first. The NRO absolved people accused of crimes that were not under purview of NAB, crimes far more heinous than corruption but why only cases under NAB are being considered? The optimists who sincerely want to believe judiciary to be impartial come up with the logic that corruption needs to be tackled from the top. The logic is acceptable, how can a government headed by a corrupt person deliver? But then it is clear that judiciary is not interested in applying the same criteria when it is dealing with the largest province of Pakistan where 57% of the population resides. The numerous cases pending against Khadim e Aala Punjab Shahbaz Sharif are not in the list of cases to be heard anytime soon.

Whither 1973 Constitution

The gross disregard for and rules remind me of the famous quote that the Chief Justice of Pakistan so fervently misquoted during the movement for restoration of judiciary, “absolute power corrupts absolute.” In its wrath the Lords are starting to think that it is about time that they do away with the Constitution. Constitution today is being violated in letter and spirit, the Lords seek to draw their power in their own twisted understanding of right and wrong and free from any form of judicial restraint.

The right to counsel of choice

The right to defend oneself and choose a lawyer of ones own choice is a fundamental right that the Lords have done away with. The conviction of Additional DG FIA Ahmed Riaz Sheikh left many lawyers awestruck. The accused was served the summons to appear before court in the evening of the preceding day and despite the short notice the accused did manage to do so. However, it was in the court room that the Constitution was trampled. When the counsel of the accused Mr Rasheed A Rizvi started presenting the case before the Lords, if media reports are to believed (and since no denial or clarification has been presented by the court I think they are true) the Lords scolded the esteemed lawyer for defending the accused. It is also reported that he was not allowed to complete his arguments and dismissed. The right to counsel of choice and defend oneself was thrown in the bin. The article 10 subsection 1 of the Constitution reads as follows:

10. Safeguards as to arrest and detention.
(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.

Independent mind

The actions of the Lords also demonstrated that they lacked another key requirement of a jurist i.e. independence of mind. For this reason Judges who have had appeared as lawyers for an accused refuse to sit in benches as they may not be unbiased. In this case, however, the Lords dislike for the accused was so visible in their desperate attempt to humiliate him and his counsel that I was reminded of the conviction by the all white jury of a black man in the famous Harper Lee novel, To Kill a Mockingbird whereby the only crime of the black man is the color of his skin.

Double jeopardy

Double jeopardy a Constitutional right in many countries including ours and an accepted norm in most is the reasoning that no person shall be punished for the same crime twice. If media reports that Mr Ahmed Riaz Sheikh was convicted upon appeal are to be believed, the question is that since he has completed his imprisonment term why was he sent back to jail? The Lords again were more interested in making a scene than giving any explanation to reduce public anxiety.

The article 13 (a) of the 1973 Constitution states:

No person:-
shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once;

Why are legislators legislating?

The Lords are indeed very talkative reminding me of the saying that ‘sayana kawa goo khaata hai’(a close translation would be smart asses, shame themselves), The Lords in their routine streak commented, “have not the parliamentarians got anything else to do that they are after judicial reforms.” Well no sir, they have not got anything else to do. Had you not missed those crucial classes in law school you would have known that legislators legislate. They make laws! While our legislators digress and get funds for development they are none the less the domain of the executive and not legislature. So when they are performing their Constitutional duty you should commend their efforts.

Presidential immunity

The last attack on the Constitution at the behest of the Lords is the consistent ignorance of Article 248 of the Constitution. The desperate attempt to reinterpret it is mind boggling. The Lords now say that when the President has not sought refuge under the immunity, cases be reopened in the first instance. A plain reading of the said article would apprise us that the very judge and prosecutor who orders and indulges in bring a proceeding against the President is violating the Constitution. The President does not need to seek immunity but our Lords who were well aware of the dynamics of the article during the dictatorial rule have now forgotten it. A similar immunity is granted all over the world but the heart believes what it wants to believe.


It is clear that the Lords in their absolute power have misunderstood the people of Pakistan. They forget that the struggle by the people of Pakistan was for the rule of law and Constitution, our beloved dastoor. Should they transgress any further, they should know that the same masses under the guidance of the same leaders and lawyers will be ready flood the streets of Islamabad. And though the cause will remain the same too i.e. rule of law, the target this time will be the rule of judges.

Pachyglossal!! Thy shall not speak

Coming back from work, I tuned into the daily news at nine bulletin. As the shalwar kameez adorning pretty news caster started firing off the headlines, I realized that my first five minutes would consist of yet another narcissitic member of the judiciary boasting about their achievements. Normally I simply ignore their wishful thinking but this time the judge, whose name I shall dare not quote for the fear of being convicted in contempt of court went a bit too far. It would be injustice that his accusations and statements are not rebutted.

The esteemed judge talked about many things, including the Chief Justice of Pakistan's refusal to resign and his own 'feat' of not taking oath on 3rd of November. He quickly moved on to remind the present government that it owed its existence to the Chief Justice of Pakistan and on his part threatened that corruption would no longer be tolerated and can not be concealed. The highlight of quoted by the media was how he pointed finger at all other institutions of the country, specifically mentioning the police and how they have failed to deliver to people of the country.

In your sermon, sir, you violated all norms of a democratic structure and undermined the status befitting a judge of Supreme Court. Moreover, most of your statements were slanted and questionable in their usage and context.

You impressed upon us how you refused to take oath on the 3rd of November. I will like to remind you that you took oath on 9th March as acting Chief Justice of Pakistan while the Chief Justice of Pakistan was being beaten up by the police . You did not take oath on the third because you were not offered to. You sir, however, accepted a lucrative job offer as the Chairman of Press Council of Pakistan only 12 days later.

You reminded us of how we owe the present democracy to the Chief Justice of Pakistan. Your this statement was directed towards the parliament and current government, hence, I use us. These are our representatives and they owe their existence to the people of Pakistan. We the people of Pakistan, are responsible for the re-crowning of the Chief Justice and for creation of this parliament. It was our struggle that you address these people today as a serving judge of this country and not a retired one.

You quote the Steel mills and Haris mills cases which saved this nation billions of rupees. You do not quote, however, the endless privatization and procurement deals that cost this nation billions, transacted before the sudden enlightment of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. His lack of interest, costed Pakistani nation, PTCL, KESC, Habib Bank along with rest of Banks of Pakistan, state-owned sugar, rice and flour mills which the last regime privatized in totality. All while you were sleeping.

Your final jab at the police and other institutions was most distasteful! The reason police and other organs of the state are not delivering are because they have been in decay for the past ten years. With recurring martial laws, the organs of state are falling apart, the prime accused in this tragedy maybe our security establishment but the prime abettor in this crime is and always have been the judiciary.

The police has indulged in chhitraul because you have failed to fulfill your duties. Corruption is rampant because you let it reach to the roots of this society in the past ten years. It was you who was sided with the dictator foremost. Even today you do not call in a member of the previous regime, to hold him accountable. You refuse to examine evidence against the security establishment in the missing persons case.

You recount to us, the order by judiciary on the 3rd of November. I ask you, was that order made forsake of this nation or forsake of thy selves?! Will a similar order be passed again if the civilian government and not the judges themselves are at the other end of the gun? People of Pakistan have given you a chance, show the grace that your exalted position deserves or the people of this country do at least. Use your time hearing the pleas of thousands of cases you impress upon us day and night not making political statements.