Adil Najam
In a rather shocking move, the President, Gen. Perzez Musharraf just dismissed the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry for alleged “misuse of authority.”
According to a breaking news segment at The News:
The president has submitted a case against Chaudhry to the Supreme Judicial Council. Musharraf had received “numerous complaints and serious allegations for misconduct, misuse of authority and actions prejudicial to the dignity of office of the chief justice of Pakistan,” and Chaudhry had been unable to give a satisfactory explanation, sources said. The report did not specify what he was accused of. The council is a panel of top Pakistani judges that adjudicates cases brought against serving judges and will decide whether the charges against Chaudhry merit his formal dismissal and whether he should be prosecuted.
Basing their story on the Associated Press of Pakistan, the BBC reports further:
Mr Chaudhry was summoned to explain himself to Gen Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. His case was then referred to the Supreme Judicial Council which will decide if Mr Chaudhry should be prosecuted.
The move has shocked many, but signs of its coming can now be identified in hindsight. Mr. Chaudhry had served as the Chief Justice since 2005 and, on occasion, had taken steps that had irked the power structure in Pakistan.
According to a Khaleej Times report, for example:
Last June, the Supreme Court rejected a government move to sell 75 percent of state-owned Pakistan Steel Mills to a Saudi-Russian-Pakistani consortium for 21.7 billion rupees ($362 million). Mill workers claimed it was greatly undervalued. Also, Chaudhry has heard a landmark case brought by relatives of dozens of people believed taken into secret custody by Pakistani intelligence agencies. The chief justice has pressed the government to provide information on the detainees whereabouts. Talat Masood, a political analyst, said the removal of Chaudhry demonstrated the power of the military and suggested that Musharraf’s government wanted to have a “pliable judiciary” ahead of parliamentary elections expected later this year. Musharraf, who took power in a bloodless coup in 1999, is widely expected to seek another five-year term as president from parliament this fall.
Recently, an open letter from Advocate Naeem Bokhari addressed to the Chief Justice and making a number of allegations against him – some personal – has been circulating on the internet extensively. Over the last week, I received probably two dozen emails with that letter in it (many from our readers, and one from my mother!). It seems to have created a stir. Many readers have been writing that we do a post on that letter. I had not done so, just because the letter was a little puzzling to me and its motivations were not clear. I wondered also if there were hints of personal rivalries or issues. On the other hand it was a well-written and seemingly sincere letter from a person of known integrity. In retrospect, the way the letter ended was prophetic:
My Lord, this communication may anger you and you are in any case prone to get angry in a flash, but do reflect upon it. Perhaps you are not cognizant of what your brother judges feel and say about you. My Lord, before a rebellion arises among your brother judges (as in the case of Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah), before the Bar stands up collectively and before the entire matter is placed before the Supreme Judicial Council, there may be time to change and make amends. I hope you have the wisdom and courage to make these amends and restore serenity, calm, compassion, patience and justice tempered with mercy to my Supreme Court. My Lord, we all live in the womb of time and are judged, both by the present and by history. The judgement about you, being rendered in the present, is adverse in the extreme.
In all honesty, one has to wonder, however, whether it was that letter and other recent media focus on the Chief Justice that led to the removal of the Chief Justice, or whether these were merely instruments designed to prepare the way for this removal?
In either case, a removal of the Chief Justice in this way and for such reasons and at this time is a sad, sad development that will be one more blow to the hopes of the development of an independent judiciary in Pakistan.
Note: At various points we have reproduced, in our right-most column, cartoons from Daily Times (and here) and The News.
CHEIF JUSTICE KO BAHAL KARO
The list of posts on the CJ you have on the top of the main page today is really very interesting. A full year of a mans and a nation’s life was wasted because of the arrogance and thirst of power of another man – Musharraf!
CHIEF JUSTICE OF PAKISTAN ARMY
All the Pakistanis are fascinated by daring decision by the Army Chief to redefine the role of Army thus pulling it away from its controversial connections with politics and governance. Such a courageous step combined with other professional and welfare measures reflects his new visionary outlook for this great institution as its chief executive. It is equally if not more important if the General also asserts himself as Chief Justice of Pakistan Army. While he does internal legislation for future, he has to display the audacity and capacity to undo the injustices done to the members of army in the recent past as a result of political expediency. Certain arbitrary policy decisions based on personal whims are believed to have long term adverse effects on the Army in general and the under command in particular. The Army Chief has three hats of executive, legislative and judiciary and the Army, contrary to the civil services and Indian Army sharing same British traditions does not allow its officers to question his decisions, if they feel to be wronged. Such an autocratic approach betrays the concept of basic human rights and social justice to those who pledge to lay their lives on the orders of their superiors.
Should that mean that the decision makers in the armed forces are angels or perfect human beings? Certainly not; that is why some wise men introduced the term REVIEW in the promotion board results. However, this clause had been omitted for brigadiers sometimes back for unknown reasons thus denying the possibility of reviewing the decision of a promotion board. A specimen of blatant violation of established policy was witnessed during last promotion board from brigadier to major general resulting in unprecedented supersession of officers with admirable profile. This board as a convention considers two long courses for promotion to maintain a balanced relationship between induction and promotion as two courses join PMA every year. This time, however, a decision was taken by Military Secretary to include an other PMA Long course on the pretext of non availability of qualified officers in armoured corps. It required no genius to conclude that this decision would lead to unnecessary competition in certain arms, as the vacancies remained generally unchanged and arms specific. Later some vested interests were able to get two more graduate courses included to ensure early promotion of some crony thus forcing the staff to find justifications for enlarging the scope of the board. Such innovative arrangements minimized competition in armoured corps in the next board aimed at benefiting some more cronies, while the results revealed that only infantry officers suffered as the ratio of qualified infantry officers became exponentially higher to the number of vacancies available, resulting in massive superseding of officers with comparable profile. It is assumed that infantry was used as a
An article by Maulana Ihtesham ul Haq Thanvi sheds light on historic reasons for our current mess. Especially relevant in the context of coming elections.
Part I
http://jang.com.pk/jang/jan2008-daily/31-01-2008/c ol10.htm
Part II
http://jang.com.pk/jang/feb2008-daily/01-02-2008/c ol12.htm
Thanks for the clarification, ‘whatever.’
I guess that means that Nawaz Sharif was right in removing Pervez Musharraf as COAS, since Sharif had appointed Musharraf as COAS.
(Actually, the latter was legal, the former was not; since the Consititution does give the right to the Prime Minister to remove COAS but does not give the right to the President to remove the CJ).