Winter of discontent?

The Supreme Court’s short judgment has surprised all. The petitioners could neither prove any violation of fundamental rights as their petition claimed, nor could they prove former ambassador Husain Haqqani’s alleged role in the memo. In spite of this, an inquiry commission was appointed without due process of law and Mr Haqqani was barred from leaving the country without the permission of court.

In reaction, human rights activist and Mr Husain Haqqani’s counsel in the memo case Asma Jahangir has refused to act as a counsel of her client for further proceedings of the case.

Ms Jahangir has expressed no confidence in the justice being delivered from either the court or the judicial commission. She termed the judgment as a win for the military establishment, which undermined civilian supremacy and expressed her concerns as: “If nine judges of the SC can be (under the establishment’s influence), then I am sorry to say I cannot have any expectations from the high court judges (heading the judicial commission).”

When the proceedings of the memo case started, it was clearly observed that more credibility was being given by to the military top brass as opposed to the civilians. The apex court has focussed on national security instead of upholding fundamental rights and civilian authority that has turned the public’s expectations from the ‘independent’ judiciary into disillusionment.

Independent courts all over the world do not hear political cases but in Pakistan’s case, as the Human Rights Watch (HRW) has pointed out, “a tendency for the courts to find themselves embroiled in matters that they would not otherwise be an appropriate forum for”. Our courts have become a tad politicised. It is the main reason that Ms Jahangir claimed she was not able to get justice for her client despite making a strong legal case about the non-maintainability of the memo petitions.

After the success of the lawyers’ movement, it was expected that the judiciary would become truly independent but now the perception is growing that not much has changed. When a lower middle class woman from a minority community is imprisoned just because a fair decision would mean a popular uproar or maybe life threats to judges, when a judge has to flee the country after sentencing the murderer of former Governor Punjab Salmaan Taseer because the fanatic religious elements thought he was a blasphemer, when hundreds of Ahmedis are killed with impunity, when hundreds of Hindu women are being abducted, raped and forcefully converted to Islam and the judiciary along with the state’s law-enforcing mechanism miserably fails to provide them justice or even access to justice, the independence of the judiciary seems to be the dream of a mad man.

When we started a movement for ‘freedom of judiciary’, there were a glimmer of hope in our eyes. Post-2009, we thought we got a free judiciary. Unfortunately, the judiciary still seems to be under the establishment’s influence. In the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case, Mehran Bank case or missing persons’ cases, the freedom of judiciary goes into hiding. When Asghar Khan’s petition comes up, judicial independence becomes silent.

In the pre-2009 days, the judiciary used to be biased against civilian governments and under the strong influence (in some cases, under control) of the security establishment. Looking at the short order on the memo case, one wonders, what exactly has changed? The judiciary still fears standing up to the imperiousness of the military establishment against the civilian dispensation.

At last, we may ask a simple question. Is this the kind of justice, our fellows sacrificed their lives for, mi’lord?.

SARWECH SARYO

Larkana