Adil Najam
The way that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was removed was bad enough. But what has happened since then is even more disturbing.
The Chief Justice removed. Media being muzzled. Lawyers protesting beaten up.
One can debate whether Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry should have been removed or not, or even whether the way he was removed was appropriate or not. But there is no question that the way the government is dealing with this issue is shameful, distressing, and dangerous.
The shamefulness is obvious in these pictures; just as it was when a young man’s shalwar was taken off as he protested ‘disappearances’ some months ago. It is distressing because it demonstrates the sanctity of our most important institutions – the judiciary and the media – is under stress. It is dangerous because if one keeps slipping down this road then it is not merely the future of this government but that of the entire country that will be at stake.
Whether the lawyers here instigated the violence or not, I do not know. They very possibly did, and that is itself disturbing. But that is not the point. The question is how a society and a state deals with dissent and protest. Once again, the answer is: “Shamefully.”
I do not know who is advising the government on all of this. I just pray that someone is. I hope there is someone who stands up and says:
“Don’t do this.
Please don’t do this.
This is not good for you.
This is not good for the country.
This cannot be good for anyone.
Please – for God’s sake – STOP!”
I wish I had something more profound to say right now. But as I stare at these pictures and this video clip, I hold my head in shame; I am distressed; and I ponder on the dangers before us.
All I can think of right now is: “Allah khair karey!”
(Also see a BBC video report here. All pictures above from BBC website; video from GEO News).ÂÂÂ
Every blogger here is pro-Musharraf. So shed corodile tears?
Owais: I do agree with you!
The way lawyers are seen throwing stones is not a gentlemanly act either. I don’t have any respect for stone throwing people.
Editorial, The News, March 13, 2007
All the makings of a police state
The events since Friday make extremely depressing reading for anyone remotely concerned about the state of the nation. The continued virtual house arrest of the suspended chief justice of Pakistan, Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, is a black spot on this government that will be difficult — one would say, almost impossible — to erase from public memory. As if the humiliation of Justice Chaudhry being summoned to Army House and being asked to explain to the president (wearing army fatigues) the allegations contained in a now-controversial letter was not enough, one now learns that since Friday the suspended chief justice of Pakistan and his family have had their telephone lines disconnected, their mobile phones taken away and have been prohibited from watching television or reading newspapers. According to several reports, most quoting Justice Chaudhry’s family members, the house of the suspended chief justice is swarming with officials of the intelligence agencies and no one is allowed to enter the premises, though retired air force chief Air Marshal Asghar Khan did manage to argue and walk past the guards and meet Justice Chaudhry.
In doing all of this, the government has clearly overstepped its authority. Justice Chaudhry, if Article 209 has been followed and read properly, has had a reference filed against him for misconduct and abuse of office. However, preventing him from meeting people and restricting his and his family’s movement, and not letting him establish contact with anyone outside his residence gives the impression as if the government considers him a dangerous criminal who is a clear and present danger to society. What the government has been doing since Friday is only going to exacerbate the crisis and lower its credibility — already quite low — in the eyes of (it can be safely said) most Pakistanis because they will think that if this can happen to a chief justice of the Supreme Court then ordinary citizens might just as well forget about receiving their constitutionally guaranteed right to due process and a fair hearing.
By denying the suspended chief justice the right to move around freely, to meet whoever he wishes or even to talk to the media, the government is in violation of the Constitution, and specifically of the constitutional process by which a member of the Supreme Court is to be removed from office. Surely, the president, the prime minister, members of the federal cabinet and even the brother judges of Justice Chaudhry would agree that his is a case of convicting without even being given a fair hearing. Surely, it can be seen that Article 209 does not authorise the president, or anyone for that matter, with the power to restrict the physical movement of a judge against whom a reference has been filed and to bar him from using any link to the outside world. A lot of damage has already been done by this full frontal assault on the judiciary of the country.
Of course, no one should defend a judge, no matter how august he may be, if he indulges in conduct unbecoming of his office and misuses his official powers. But allegations should not be equated with proof and conviction — something that the government’s actions suggest is the case — and the method and process outlined in the Constitution need to be followed. This constitutional method does not have any provision for physically restricting a judge under investigation from moving about freely and stripping away his officially entitled privileges — the latter can be done only after the investigation has been carried out and a recommendation for removal made by the Supreme Judicial Council and acted upon by the president. Even in that eventuality, the action should not be seen as high-handed and vindictive — which seems to be the case now, despite the fact that the charges against Justice Chaudhry remain mere allegations. As has been reported widely, on the day of his suspension following the filing of the presidential reference, Justice Chaudhry was stopped from entering the premises of the Supreme Court building and escorted to his house by a senior police official. Even now, with a reference filed against him but none of the charges proved, the suspended chief justice should be free to visit his office if he so wishes because there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents any judge of the Supreme or High Courts, and against whom a reference has been filed with the Supreme Judicial Council, from attending his office.
There is one other point as well: ministers should not consider the people of this country to be bumpkins who cannot see what is going on. When told that Air Marshal Asghar Khan had met Justice Chaudhry who told him that he (Justice Chaudhry) had no access to the phone, TV or newspapers, one member of the federal cabinet expressed surprise and then went on to say that this itself was proof that the chief justice was free to meet people. Surely, the hordes of journalists, politicians and well-wishers standing outside the gates of Justice Chaudhry’s official residence and denied entry by the security staff posted there speak of an entirely contrary situation, one that really puts official claims that he is free to meet anyone to shame. The government needs to extricate itself from this ugly situation before it spirals out of control. Any delay in repairing the damage can only convince most Pakistanis that they live in a country that has all the makings of a police state. Also, equally importantly, the government needs to understand that for the sake of its own credibility this farce needs to come to an end.
Adil: You are right, this is so shameful. There are so many things you can say but at the end of the day, nothing matters. I do appriciate that we are in the US and atleast we can ‘openly’ talk about it, I am not sure in Pakistan you can do that; thousands of people are missing in Pak. and those who protest openly, we can see what happens to them. My mind somehow goes to the extreme, I can’t help it: When I think of Musharaf, I think of Prophets. Whatever prophets used to say, that used to be the law and the word of God. These army generals can break the law and constitution the way they want it, and guess what, that become THE LAW and the word of god.