Monday, December 24, 2007

Aitzaz Ahsan in the NYT


December 23, 2007, NEW YORK TIMES
Op-Ed Contributor

Pakistan's Tyranny Continues

By AITZAZ AHSAN

Lahore, Pakistan

THE chief justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, and his family have been detained in their house, barricaded in with barbed wire and surrounded by police officers in riot gear since Nov. 3. Phone lines have been cut and jammers have been installed all around the house to disable cellphones. And the United States doesn't seem to care about any of that.

The chief justice is not the only person who has been detained. All of his colleagues who, having sworn to protect, uphold and defend the Constitution, refused to take a new oath prescribed by President Pervez Musharraf as chief of the army remain confined to their homes with their family members. The chief justice's lawyers are also in detention, initially in such medieval conditions that two of them were hospitalized, one with renal failure.

As the chief justice's lead counsel, I, too, was held without charge — first in solitary confinement for three weeks and subsequently under house arrest. Last Thursday morning, I was released to celebrate the Id holidays. But that evening, driving to Islamabad to say prayers at Faisal Mosque, my family and I were surrounded at a rest stop by policemen with guns cocked and I was dragged off and thrown into the back of a police van. After a long and harrowing drive along back roads, I was returned home and to house arrest.

Every day, thousands of lawyers and members of the civil society striving for a liberal and tolerant society in Pakistan demonstrate on the streets. They are bludgeoned by the regime's brutal police and paramilitary units. Yet they come out again the next day.

People in the United States wonder why extremist militants in Pakistan are winning. What they should ask is why does President Musharraf have so little respect for civil society — and why does he essentially have the backing of American officials?

The White House and State Department briefings on Pakistan ignore the removal of the justices and all these detentions. Meanwhile, lawyers, bar associations and institutes of law around the world have taken note of this brave movement for due process and constitutionalism. They have displayed their solidarity for the lawyers of Pakistan. These include, in the United States alone, the American Bar Association , state and local bars stretching from New York and New Jersey to Louisiana, Ohio and California, and citadels of legal education like Harvard and Yale Law Schools.

The detained chief justice continues to receive enormous recognition and acknowledgment. Harvard Law School has conferred on him its highest award, placing him on the same pedestal as Nelson Mandela and the legal team that argued Brown v. Board of Education. The National Law Journal has anointed him its lawyer of the year. The New York City Bar Association has admitted him as a rare honorary member. Despite all this, the Musharraf regime shows no sign of relenting.

But for how long? How long can the chief justice and his colleagues be kept in confinement? How long can the leaders of the lawyers' movement be detained? They will all be out one day. And they will neither be silent nor still.

They will recount the brutal treatment meted out to them for seeking the establishment of a tolerant, democratic, liberal and plural political system in Pakistan. They will state how the writ of habeas corpus was denied to them by the arbitrary and unconstitutional firing of Supreme and High Court justices. They will spell out precisely how one man set aside a Constitution under the pretext of an "emergency," arrested the judges, packed the judiciary, "amended" the Constitution by a personal decree and then "restored" it to the acclaim of London and Washington.

They will, of course, speak then. But others are speaking now. The parliamentary elections scheduled for Jan. 8 have already been rigged, they are saying. The election commission and the caretaker cabinet are overtly partisan. The judiciary is entirely hand-picked. State resources are being spent on preselected candidates. There is a deafening uproar even though the independent news media in Pakistan are completely gagged. Can there even be an election in this environment?

Are they being heard? I'm afraid not.

Aitzaz Ahsan, a former minister of the interior and of law and justice, is the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan.


Saturday, December 15, 2007

Let the people decide

By Imtiaz Alam
Dozens of smaller parties in the All Parties' Democratic Movement (APDM) -- which have been more enthusiastic about boycotting elections since they have nothing to lose -- have been isolated after former prime minister Mian Nawaz Sharif and his PML-N decided to participate and not to let the electoral field open to their rival league of defectors (PML-Q). The APDM, despite reaching an agreement over a 14-point charter of demands, met its demise over the boycott issue, opening up the new alignment of forces. It is yet to be seen whether, after the division in the APDM, the MMA will keep its unity or not, depending upon Jamaat-e-Islami which may not opt for losing its share of seats in NWFP to Fazlur Rehman's JUI. The best bet for the democratic opposition parties is a closer alliance between Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. How are the major political actors going to play out this round?

The APDM met its anti-climax, just five days away from the finalization of candidates for the next elections, before launching any movement. It was formed for tactical reasons causing a breach between the two former prime ministers and the leaders of the two major parties and broke for tactical considerations, this time for more vital practical reasons. The compulsions and imperatives of truly mass parties are different from the smaller parties who on their own cannot win a dozen odd seats and have nothing to share positively, except negatives. If Mr Sharif could not carry the hodgepodge of the APDM as one of the major players, Maulana Fazlur Rehman could not sacrifice his pragmatic realism at the altar of Qazi Hussain Ahmed's egocentric isolationism. What is, however, good about the whole exercise of building consensus is that the broader spectrum of the opposition parties now agree on 13 points plus one with different approaches towards the reinstatement of the pre-PCO-II judges, albeit their agreement over independence of the judiciary.

On the issue of the pre-PCO-II judges, the PPP differed over the practicability of their reinstatement after their removal has been 'adjudicated' by the PCO-II apex court that has also upheld the November 3 proclamations of the PCO and the emergency. The only forum left for their restoration is next parliament on whose boycott the APDM was quite naively insisting. The fate of November 3 PCO, including those judges not called for or excluded from oath under the PCO-II, is going to be decided by next parliament. This is what Ms Bhutto argued. The PPP took a more principled and structural stance to establish an independent judiciary through a bipartisan process while pointing out the pointlessness of demanding their restoration from President Musharraf, under the PCO or otherwise.

It is quite intriguing that the APDM, instead of forcing President Musharraf to resign, wanted him to restore the judges who could have performed the job of ousting him. On the contrary, this is the job of political parties to overthrow one government or the other through democratic means and not the least of judiciary. Both the judiciary and the media had to pay heavily for the lack of potent political activism on the part of political parties. Judicial activism is good for the hapless citizens and rule of law, but it is no substitute to political activism. For long seven years, the PCO-I judiciary remained subservient to the man it had taken oath of its allegiance. It was only after Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was suspended and the great movement for independence of the judiciary launched by the lawyers' community that a section of the judiciary woke up to the call of its duty. No doubt, Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry wrote a glorious chapter by his defiance of a ruthless executive, independence of the judiciary cannot be established without a broad bipartisan consensus and sound constitutional footing.

The mainstream political forces, despite having the disadvantage of a PCO-II judiciary, could not afford to make their participation in elections conditional upon the restoration of the judges removed under the PCO-II. Mixing their restoration with the participation in or boycott of the elections was entirely misplaced. It took away the focus from the too crucial issue of holding free and fair elections on which depended the fate of the future political setup and the revival of democracy along with an independent judiciary and a free media. Among all politicians, Ms Bhutto and Fazlur Rehman remained consistent in keeping firm in their resolve to fight the establishment-backed parties in the elections. They did not want to miss the great opportunity of reaching out to people, mobilize them and won the electoral battle, despite all odds. Now, Mr Sharif after getting the taste of public support has opted for the most appropriate tactic of participating in the elections which brings him closer to Ms Bhutto and Fazlur Rehman. In the meanwhile, let all parties of the ARD, the APDM and the MMA agree on a 14-point agenda without dividing the opposition on the issue of boycotting the elections.

Most importantly, the restoration of democracy, independence of the judiciary and a free media depend on how Ms Bhutto, Mr Sharif, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the ANP and Baloch nationalists play their cards. They must agree to work together not just before the elections, but also after the elections. The bars, civil society and the media should avoid flying their lofty banners of liberal values against the democratic opposition. Their spirit and principle is same, fields are different. Civil society must remain vigilant, but must not extend beyond its role and size. The letter written by the leader of the lawyers' community, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, provides a creative way out of the burgeoning conflict between civil society and political parties. In the event of disagreement over the boycott issue, he has suggested that bars must run a campaign for public oath by the candidates to legislate for the restoration of independence of the judiciary and independent deposed judges.

The boycotters must realize that they are playing into the hands of undemocratic forces by leaving the filed open to the king's parties. Since they are least prepared for an effective boycott, they must stop substituting real action of participating in elections with demagogy. Civil society must not fall into their trap and avoid jumping over the shoulders of politicians. It must concentrate its energies on helping to bring in the best lot to new parliament. This is time to unify on principles and not to get divided over tactical issues. Above all, this is time to go to the people and not let their mandate once again hijacked by the usurpers of peoples' rights and the boycotters must avoid extending a helping hand to those who want to hoodwink peoples' sovereignty. Let the people decide.



The writer is editor current affairs, The News, and editor South Asian Journal. Email: imtiazalampak@yahoo.com

Islamabad’s art scene

ONE would like to view the opening last week of yet another art gallery in Islamabad, the fourth this year in the capital, as a reflection of the fast changing character of a city that was once known as a cultural desert. This new gallery may not have the kind of impact which the public National Art Gallery made when it was inaugurated in August, some three decades after the project was first conceived in the 1970s. Nevertheless, this new showcase of artistic expression adds to a growing number of art galleries in the capital which now has eight in all. They are being seen as a strong statement of a growing interest in the arts and an increasing appreciation for creative expression in the once sterile capital city. While previously art lovers and buyers were mainly confined to the diplomatic corps and the top bureaucracy, today there is a new burgeoning generation of young executives in the corporate sector who, not satisfied with just mere prints, are developing a preference for having original paintings on the walls of their drawing rooms.

Earlier, the National Art Gallery had been hailed as a triumph of the development of art and the freedom of expression of the human spirit in Pakistan. It was featured in major newspapers, magazines and television programmes abroad, giving the country a positive projection internationally. No doubt individual Pakistani artists have already been making their mark in the global art market by holding exhibitions in galleries abroad. But it is the capital city's National Art Gallery with its towering black burqa-clad sculptural figures that stand at the entrance, its red brickwork building and its 14 galleries illuminated by natural light and showcasing some of the best jewels in local paintings, that has made the world sit up and take notice of the wealth of Pakistan's talent in art.

The Lawyer of the Year: Iftikhar Chaudhry

 
Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry declared Lawyer of the Year

The National Law Journal

 


 

 

LAWYER OF THE YEAR | IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY

Pakistan's chief protester

Rex Bossert / Editor-in-Chief
December 17, 2007

 

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
Illustration: Joseph Adolph

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is not exactly a household name to the legal profession in the United States. We think he should be.

Chaudhry, the chief justice of Pakistan who was dismissed from office by President Pervez Musharraf after the imposition of emergency rule, has been a strong voice for the preservation of the rule of law in Pakistan — one of the United States' key allies in the war on terror.

Though currently held under house arrest, Chaudhry has spoken out against emergency rule and has inspired thousands of his lawyer-brethren to protest in the streets in their traditional black suits and ties. He has become an international symbol of an independent judiciary and of resistance to the excesses of military rule. Hundreds of attorneys have also turned out to protest on his behalf in cities across the country.

As this year's National Law Journal Lawyer of the Year, Chaudhry is a bit of a departure, since normally our sights are set on the American legal community. And there were certainly numerous U.S. lawyers who deserved mention, as indicated by the many nominations we received from our readers. The unusual choice of Chaudhry was prompted by the rare instance of a judge taking such a bold and influential stand against a government in defense of judicial independence and the rule of law. And his example has prompted much commentary and concern among lawyers in this country, who by virtue of their profession have a vested interest in promoting the rule of law.

Chaudhry's example reminds us that no government or person — whether ally or enemy — is above the law.

Reluctant revolutionary

Chaudhry hardly began his career as a revolutionary. According to press accounts and a court Web site, he was born to a lower middle class family in the city of Quetta, Pakistan, in 1948. He studied locally and then earned a law degree in Hyderabad. Chaudhry started practice as an advocate in Quetta in 1974. He practiced in many fields of law, including criminal, civil, tax and constitutional law, and eventually became president of the bar association of the Pakistan province of Balochistan. In 1989, he became Balochistan's advocate general, and the next year, a judge of the province's high court. A stint as chief justice of the Balochistan High Court followed in 1999, and he was then elevated to the Pakistan Supreme Court in 2000. In 2005, he was appointed chief justice of Pakistan.

During these years he showed few signs of breaking with traditions or an independent streak. Indeed, he participated in Supreme Court sessions between 2000 and 2005 that validated Musharraf's military takeover, the legal framework for his rule, and a constitutional amendment that gave Musharraf added powers and allowed him to keep his hold over the army.

But after becoming chief justice, Chaudhry began to show a desire to assert the high court's independence. According to various press accounts, he began pushing the government to disclose the whereabouts of Pakistanis who were secretly detained by intelligence agencies for alleged terrorism or other political purposes. He also held unconstitutional a steel-mills privatization plan that was dear to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.

On March 9, Musharraf, backed by Aziz and the military, suspended Chaudhry because of alleged nepotism and abuses of office, sparking mass protests. A 13-member panel of the Pakistan Supreme Court reinstated Chaudhry in July, saying he was illegally suspended and dismissing charges against him. At the time Musharraf said he would accept the court's ruling, which the London Times said was the first ever by the court against a military ruler.

But on Nov. 3, Musharraf, perhaps fearing the Supreme Court would overturn his recent election as illegal because he remained head of the military, suspended the Constitution and purged the court of Chaudhry and others who he felt were disloyal. In his declaration of emergency, Musharraf accused the judiciary of hindering his fight on terrorism, and he said he needed to maintain stability in the face of extremism. Musharraf has asked judges to swear an oath to the provisional Constitution, but many have refused, at Chaudhry's encouragement. Lawyers are also boycotting courtrooms run by judges who have sworn their loyalty to new legal regime.

Chaudhry was replaced by a new chief justice, and eight other high court justices swore a new oath. The reconstituted court set aside an earlier ruling by Chaudhry and other rebellious judges that the emergency was unconstitutional.

Under house arrest, Chaudhry made a cellphone call to a meeting of the Islamabad Bar Association in which he told dozens of lawyers on speakerphone: "The lawyers should convey my message to the people to rise up and restore the Constitution.

"I am under arrest now, but soon I will also join you in your struggle."

He has also been secretly calling Pakistani journalists, who are defying an emergency order prohibiting coverage that would embarrass Musharraf or the government.

Asked by CNN International whether he had a message for Musharraf, Chaudhry said, "He should restore the judiciary, which was working independently in this country for the strengthening of the institution of democracy."

Pakistani lawyers, who have been among the most vociferous opponents of Musharraf, are continuing to protest Chaudhry's treatment and military rule, and are boycotting court proceedings in several cities. In the face of such opposition, Musharraf — who recently took off his military chief's uniform and has been sworn in for a five-year term as civilian president — has promised to end the state of emergency and restore the Constitution before January parliamentary elections.

Outpouring of support

The Harvard Law School Association has recently awarded Chaudhry its highest medal, the Medal of Freedom.

"As lawyers who value freedom and the rule of law, we at Harvard Law School want Chief Justice Chaudhry and all of the courageous lawyers in Pakistan to know that we stand with them in solidarity," said Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan.

"We are proud to be their colleagues in the cause of justice, and we will do all we can to press for the prompt restoration of constitutionalism and legality in Pakistan."

Hundreds of lawyers recently held a protest march in Ottawa over the situation in Pakistan, sponsored by the Canadian Bar Association, which is also urging lawyers to sign a petition and write to Pakistani officials.

Among many others in the United States who have rallied in support, the American Bar Association spoke out against Chaudhry's suspension earlier this year, saying that it "appears to have been inconsistent with the language of Article 180 and Article 209 of the Constitution of Pakistan. International covenants and conventions recognize and adopt the right of an independent judiciary as an essential pillar of a society that contends it supports the principle of justice for all."
More recently, lawyers have also rallied in support of Chaudhry in cities across the United States.

And on Dec. 4, American Bar Association President William H. Neukom asked lawyers around the country to sign a petition asking Musharraf to restore the constitution in Pakistan, reinstate Chaudhry and other justices and free lawyers and civil leaders who have been jailed unjustly.

"An independent legal system and a just constitution are cornerstones of all lawful societies. The arrests of Pakistan's Supreme Court justices, and of thousands of lawyers, judges and civil leaders, are a profound breach of the rule of law," Neukom wrote. "The suspension of Pakistan's institutions of justice is a threat to the rule of law in all nations. We, the lawyers of America, stand with you."

The NLJ joins the chorus of those calling for the just treatment of Chaudhry and a return to the rule of law in Pakistan.

Benazir - on the road to power

Bomb to kill BB was tied to a baby

Former premier says she was worried about the baby getting dropped or hurt
* Considers herself lucky to have Zardari

By Khalid Hasan


WASHINGTON: Former prime minister Benazir Bhutto has said that the bomb attack on her homecoming procession was carried out by a man who was holding up a baby who was rigged up with explosives and whom he wanted her to hold.

Had she just at that moment not bent to loosen her shoes because of her swollen feet, she would have been dead, Benazir told the Washington Times.

Benazir was worried: According to the account published in the newspaper on Friday, a man approached her armoured truck, trying to hand across a small child. She gestured for the man to come closer. The child was about one or two. The man who was carrying it, kept trying to hand it to people to hand it to her. “I’m a mother, I love babies, but the (street lights) had already gone out, and I was worried about the baby getting dropped or hurt,” she said.

“The baby, the bomb, it went off only feet from me; there was nothing between us but the wall of the truck. We were rocking from side to side, this huge truck. We saw the bodies, the blood everywhere; we saw the carnage. Some bodies were naked, with their clothes burned off,” she added.

Lucky BB: Of her husband, Benazir said, “People say he is a liability, but they hit me by getting at him. I am very proud that he has stood by me; he stood his ground. He is a proud man, and he was humiliated. ... I don’t consider him a liability. I always think, what if he was not as brave as he turned out to be? What if he had listened to the army and divorced me? He could have chosen his business, you know. But he has paid a lot politically and personally. I am very lucky to have him. I think that people respect that he has stayed with me. If he had left, it would have been even worse.”
From the Daily Times