|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Editorial framework “The
army, the judiciary and the media share the middle class perspective that
politicians are the most corrupt people" judiciary Circumference
of accountability
The worst fears
have been realised - the courts have decided to go for the overkill. Our
analyst for today's Special Report, Waqqas Mir, almost said it. An alien
landing in this country "could be forgiven for assuming that it is
the judiciary that runs a country". But the country is bigger
than we think and so are its problems. A government spending its mornings
and afternoons in the corridors of the courts does so at its own peril.
And at the cost of immense harm to the country. A hint of it was felt
when amid the din of court orders, a media house was attacked by representatives
of the Tehreeke Taliban Pakistan (TTP). It ought to have come as a timely
reminder of the real problems faced by this country - terrorism being
the most potent of them. There are other pressing issues like power shortage
that pinches the common man a little more than the clash between the elected
government and the judiciary. Scratch a little deeper
and the structural problems raise their ugly head (did they ever lower
that ugly head of theirs). Beneath the superficial clash lies the eternal
civil-military clash. Many of the high profile sticking points in recent
years (remember Memogate) stemmed out of this clash. The traces of Pakistan's
almost failed foreign policy could be traced on the doorstep of this eternal
clash. Ties with the US, Saudi Arabia or Iran or both, provincial autonomy,
constitutional reforms, education and health, nothing will be conclusively
dealt by an elected government till the civil-military imbalance stands
corrected. Yet, we find ourselves
embroiled in a needless fight. Forgetting the attack on the media house;
forgetting as well the Arsalan-Riaz scandal. Incidentally, once again
it's an unelected institution pitched against an elected one. Politicians
that are potential beneficiaries of this fight have decided to put their
weight behind the Supreme Court. Lawyers who have their professions at
stake do not have much of a choice except the obvious. The media has decided
to stick to its original, though selective, brief - politicians are corrupt. This overwhelming consensus
in favour of the judiciary has somehow failed to impress the intelligentsia
in this country. Somehow, the political analysts sound depressed and fear
a collapse of the system if not the federation itself. It is not without
reason they seem convinced that the establishment has still not accepted
the people's right to have a civilian setup.
framework “In practical
terms, democracy is finished because the balance of power between the
parliament, the executive and the judiciary has been ruined.” This is
an anonymous quote of a senior Pakistan People’s Party member in a political
analysis that was published a week ago. The context, of course, was the
prime minister’s disqualification at the hands of the Supreme Court. Nothing much has changed
in the week that has passed since, except two more deadlines given to
the senior-most government functionaries by the Supreme Court and Lahore
High Court respectively. As expected, the Supreme Court has ordered the
newly appointed prime minister to submit a written response by July 12
to the court as to “whether or not he will write the letter”. In another
case, a full bench of the Lahore High Court has asked the president to
dissociate himself from political activities by September 5, 2012. An institutional clash
leading to the undoing of the democratic experiment is how a layman would
tend to read the political situation. Of course, the biggest clash is
the one that’s intra-institution — within the political forces themselves.
At least that’s how senior journalist Nazeer Leghari looks at it. “It’s
not that one institution is working against democracy. The political forces
have ignored the constitution and parliamentary supremacy. They have let
other institutions encroach upon their territory.” Thus, he fears, the forces
that have a long experience of derailing the system will not find it too
difficult this time. Leghari is referring to
the opposition parties taking their petitions to the Supreme Court. “In
doing so, they stand behind those habitual petitioners who want to serve
vested interests — ‘services’ and ‘departments’ — in the name of ‘national
interest’ but are actually working towards a clash of institutions.” Political scientist and
analyst Hasan Askari Rizvi thinks political forces are working against
themselves. “They are taking a short-term, immediate view. If they can’t
expect change from within the parliament, they will get it from the Supreme
Court.” But the future of democracy
is not what worries Leghari, nor the fact that such-and-such party is
in power. It’s the sustainability of the federation itself “if there’s
an extra constitutional adventure again”. He quotes Balochistan
and Sindh where the situation is really drastic. “Even Punjab will feel
alienated if it’s kept out of the political process,” he says. “If you
come to Sindh or South Punjab, I’ll show how people have reacted to Gilani’s
ouster. You will get to see a part of this reaction in Gilani’s byelection.” The decision of prime
minister’s ouster is definitely not a routine political development. Rizvi
thinks the Supreme Court has definitely exceeded its domain “but that’s
how it’s functioning. Elected representatives cannot be rectified by non-elected
institutions.” He says, earlier, this
job was performed by the army but now it’s the Supreme Court. Rizvi sees
a similarity between the reaction on this decision and the military takeovers
in this country — “people showing signs of relief and distributing mithai
over the end of ‘corrupt’ rulers”. He mentions vested interests
of political parties like PML-N, JI and PTI as well as lawyers belonging
to JI who have praised the decision. But this leads him to conclude that
“it will have the same consequences as the military takeovers. Except
there is a greater risk now the system will collapse.” In this battle between
the Supreme Court’s wish to dominate and the political forces’ wish to
survive, PML-N’s role has been a subject of great discussion. Leghari
pins huge hopes on the party which has made sacrifices since 1999. “My
sense is they must have learnt a lot. They faced sorrows, of exile etc.
Today, they stand behind certain institutions without realising this is
a dangerous precedent. They are reducing their own space. There is a possibility
that they will be accommodated again, like they were in the form of IJI,
but I doubt if Pakistan’s federation can withstand that.” As the major opposition
party, Rizvi sees hope in PML-N too. “PML-N and PPP have to work together
to complete formalities like election of Chief Election Commissioner and
the caretaker setup before the elections. Only then there is some chance
of recovery, though I’m still not sure if it can be a complete recovery.” The complete recovery,
in Rizvi’s view, will only be possible once the Supreme Court decides
to step back and show some restraint. “Only then the political forces
will have a chance to stand on their own feet; otherwise this will always
remain a question of survival.” Supreme Court lawyer Salman
Akram Raja seriously contests this view. “How can it be said that the
political forces will not be able to stand on their feet when half the
political forces feel the need to iron out their differences through the
courts.” “In the petition for electoral
reforms, bigger, smaller and even fringe parties became petitioners because
they feel that an active judiciary is required to create a level playing
field. It’s only the government that feels restrained. I don’t think the
Supreme Court has exceeded its domain in the removal of the prime minister.
There is a minor procedural thing; they could have asked the Chief Election
Commissioner and the matter would have been settled with the same result
in a matter of a week,” Raja says with conviction. Seen in a narrow legal
framework, Raja makes sense. But it is not easy to separate the legal
from the political in this country where political compulsions force some
people into the legal domain with decisive political outcomes. And, then
there is history — the distant and the not too distant history. From validation
of martial laws to memogates, the nexus of unelected institutions is etched
in the collective public memory. A level playing field, yes, but before
that all players must be convinced about the referee’s commitment to provide
one. Who cares? Stalemate remains as homework
on the caretaker set-up is far from complete As demands for
holding fresh elections become stronger in the election year, the burden
falls on both the ruling coalition and the opposition to agree on a neutral
caretaker government. Besides, they have to ensure that a powerful and
independent election commission is there to conduct free and fair polls. Though a breakthrough
on this count was achieved in February this year, what has followed has
not been satisfactory. At that time it was decided through a constitutional
amendment that the caretaker prime minister will be appointed with the
mutual consent of the outgoing set-up and the opposition. Similarly, it
was decided that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) would also be appointed
by a consensus between them. However, despite the passage
of four months, no serious efforts have been made to appoint a permanent
CEC and Justice Shakirullah Jan of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is working
as the acting CEC. Bar councils from all
over the country have repeatedly urged both the government and the opposition
to appoint a permanent CEC immediately but to no avail. The office of
the CEC is extremely important as the Election Commission of Pakistan
(ECP) has been empowered and can have a decisive role in setting up a
caretaker government in the country. In case of a disagreement
between the outgoing prime minister and the opposition leader, the Speaker
of the National Assembly will constitute an eight-member committee comprising
four members each of the opposition and the ruling alliance. These members
will have to form a consensus on the name of the interim prime minister.
As members cannot violate
party line, it is quite likely that the stalemate will continue and the
last option — of leaving the decision to the EC — will be resorted to.
Under the agreement, if
this committee fails to evolve a consensus on the interim set-up, the
matter will be referred to the EC which will then be the final authority
to send its nomination for the caretaker prime minister to the president
who will notify the name. A similar procedure will be followed at the
provincial level for the appointment of the caretaker chief minister. This shows how important
is the role of the CEC in this scenario. The longer they take to reach
an agreement on the name of someone who has an impeccable record for the
slot, the more will the differences and confusions on the issue be. Yet another task for the
proponents of fair elections is to form consensus among political parties
which are not in the assemblies. They think by leaving matters to the
ruling coalition and the opposition they have been left out. PTI’s Imran Khan even
contests the powers given to the CEC in deciding the interim set-up as
he thinks a member of the civil bureaucracy should not have these powers.
The contentious voters’ lists are another issue that can lead to differences
among parties before talks start on the set-up. — S Irfan Ahmed
“The
army, the judiciary and the media share the middle class perspective that
politicians are the most corrupt people" The News on Sunday:
How do you view the current term of the elected government vis-à-vis the
challenges it has faced? Dr Mohammad Waseem: For
me, the current political experiment is not democracy; at best, it’s a
sharing of power between the civil and the military players. It has political
legitimacy but the policy is controlled by the army. A huge portion of
policy — foreign, nuclear, defence etc — falls in that category. I would
call this a “transitional government”. In the modern world, the study
of this stage is called “transitology”, which means power is moving from
the military to the civilians only gradually and over a considerable length
of time. TNS: How independent is
this very government? MW: This democratic government
is weak because the parliament as an institution is weak. Parliament depends
on, and is being run through, the executive. As the parliamentary system
is weak, the executive is weak too. The army, on the other hand, continues
to be strong, being in control since the 1950s. The judiciary has become
strong for the second time over. It became strong for the first time during
the tenure of Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah who took a firm stand against
the then elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif — in 1997. This time, the judiciary
is strong mainly because of the civil society, which backed the present
Chief Justice and stood up for his restoration when he was sacked by General
Pervez Musharraf in 2007. The other force behind
him was that of the political parties. As you know, the civil society,
especially the lawyers’ community, was the first one to stand behind the
CJP. He has been riding the popularity wave since. The non-parliamentary
institutions — the army and the judiciary — are united and intact, while
the parliamentary forces are divided. With regards to the National Reconciliation
Ordinance, the parties within the coalition government — such as MQM —
also refused to back PPP. Besides, the distance
between the civilian and military establishments has continued to increase
in the past two years — on Kerry Lugar Bill, Raymond Davis affair, Abbottabad
Operation and Memogate which put further pressure on this government.
TNS: How do you look back
at the tussle between the judiciary and the government as it has played
out in the last couple of years? MW: Judiciary is a state
institution like the army and the bureaucracy. At the other end, there
is the political institution such as the parliament that consists of political
parties elected by the people. There has been a tussle, undoubtedly. In
my view, our judiciary has a middle class perspective. The middle class
perspective, especially urban, is that politicians are the most corrupt
people in the country. A major part of the media
shares that perspective. The army, the judiciary and the media, openly,
and the bureaucracy not so openly, have this middle class perspective.
They condemn the political governments because they think the politicians
are under-developed educationally and professionally. The sitting CJP considers
himself as the ultimate upholder of law and justice in Pakistan while
the elected government is considered accountable to the judiciary because
it is considered corrupt per se. The SC, mainly its Chief Justice, has
assumed the role of a dispensing vigilante justice by “targeting the big
fish”. Nobody is considering or talking about the corruption in judiciary.
The lower judiciary is said to be very corrupt. What has been done for
that in the past four years despite the judicial reforms instituted by
the sitting CJP after he was restored? If that was done, it would have
been a miracle in my view. The whole system is being run as previously.
Another problem is that
the judiciary which considers civilian government accountable to it thinks
that the judiciary itself is not accountable to anybody. They are appointing,
promoting and rehiring (on ad hoc basis) judges. They object to any other
idea or system to hold them accountable, not even the parliament. These two perspectives,
i.e. institutional imbalance and the middle class being irreverent about
the middle class are in place by design. The third, by default, is that
since the government has been rendered ineffective, it is not governing
but is most of the time defending itself against the chances of being
thrown out. Its authority is not accepted by the court. Whenever the court
summons the representatives of the government, they appear, and whenever
the court likes it ousts them from power. TNS: As a political scientist,
how do you see the ouster of a prime minister by the court over a contempt
case? MW: Perhaps this is the
first time in the history that the judiciary has sent home an elected
prime minister on a contempt of court charge. Earlier, they had summoned
the PM a couple of times, sentenced him and the sentence was carried out.
Despite that they have thrown him out. An elected PM can only be removed
by the parliament that elected him in the first place. Moreover, there
are the Zia regime incorporated sections in the Constitution as in Article
63, requiring the elected members to be “sadiq” and “ameen” that pressurises
the assemblies by using the religious idiom. The Pakistan judiciary
here is operating like the Indian judiciary at one point where no institution
wants to kill the other but just to work along a modus operandi to put
pressure. Like in the Memogate, we saw that the judiciary and the army
were on the same page. There are also thoughts that this judiciary has
the tacit support of the army, at least in this case. This is a tussle
between the institutions where the media, the army and the judiciary are
pushing the elected government to the wall holding a high moral ground
of accountability for corruption and bad governance. TNS: There has also been
talk of a Bangladesh model being applied to Pakistan? MW: There are talks of
the Bangladesh model and other things. If the judiciary will be sending
the prime ministers home, it will certainly weaken the government. But
I think it will be very difficult and not liked. This will expose the
judiciary and this exercise ultimately will be termed a joke. The judiciary
might think it is gaining but in fact it will be losing. This is like
a referee becoming a player. The other option which
is being heard is the Bangladesh model. A government of technocrats which
failed in Bangladesh because it did not deliver will not work here, nor
should it be tried. It was not a success but a failure. As far as the
technocrats are concerned, technically they are already in, like the finance
minister is a technocrat, and so are some others. The last thing is that
there should be discussions and deliberations on the side. Political parties
should have a mutually-agreed upon caretaker setup and go for elections
which, in my view, is the most suitable and likely, legitimate and amicable
solution. TNS: What should be the
media’s role in this political and transitional phase? MW: As I said earlier,
the media, like state institutions, predominantly holds the middle class
perspective. It will only be talking against politicians, and hardly ever
criticising other powerful institutions like the army or the judiciary.
In that sense, it has a negative use of the freedom of expression. Although
it has played a good role by creating awareness about issues but mostly
it has made selective coverage. More importantly, the media has eroded
people’s trust in democracy. Of course, I wouldn’t blame the entire media
for it; only some sections. vaqargillani@gmail.com
Let’s begin with
an exercise in imagination. Suppose you are an alien — the benign kind,
regardless of your planet of origin — and happen to land in Islamabad.
After watching the Pakistani media for a few days you could be forgiven
for assuming that it is the judiciary that runs a country. Whether it
is law and order in the largest metropolis (the Karachi case), the prices
of commodities (sugar), appointing investigating officers, dealing with
individual human rights abuses or throwing out prime ministers the Honorable
Supreme Court is in the middle of it all. Firing the prime minister
is no small matter. Some might say that Mr. Gilani had it coming. For
many, it was a simple case. There was a court order telling him to write
a letter. The PM refused. He had to pay and, just to add flavour, needed
to be made an example of. But are things ever that simple? Even an alien
wouldn’t think so. Strictly speaking, and
by that I mean reading the text (i.e. not being an activist), the question
of disqualification of a Member of Parliament is for the Election Commission
of Pakistan (ECP) to decide. Even if it had been petitioned the court
could have chosen to let the ECP decide it. Restraint, like activism,
could have found a way. But the court chose to do the dirty work itself.
It is very likely that even if the ECP had decided the issue, Mr. Gilani
would have been ousted. Does the detail matter then? There is a powerful argument
that it does. Think separation of powers. There are those who will rubbish
such notions now. Their argument is that the Supreme Court’s hand is forced
because of a corrupt government and inefficient bureaucracy. They say
that those talking about judicial restraint should shut up and they don’t
want to hear American examples — for our situation is unique. But what does this mean?
Every dictator in Pakistan has also said that we are different and things
need to be tailored in a specific way. That view cannot be challenged
where there is a lack of accountability — on the bench and elsewhere.
The SC is now in a position where it interprets our “unique” circumstances,
their limits, extent and exceptions. It also decides how these will be
applied to others. Our unique circumstances justify the court acting in
ways unconventional but not anyone else. Is that the lesson? This means that when convenient
(think 18th Amendment!) our courts are tempted to follow examples of the
hyper-activist Indian courts in the past. And, when convenient there can
be no constitutional standards but the great Islamic past can be invoked.
It is as shocking as depressing that people are challenging a provision
of the Constitution (Presidential immunity) before a court. This didn’t
happen out of the blue. Activism begets, well, something similar. For some this is tyranny
while for others the government is to be blamed. There are also issues
of consistency versus ad hoc approaches and too much focus on cases involving
politicians. Then there are those who ask, “But what is wrong with merits
of these decisions?” And, the question confuses issues to some extent.
Of course, there are instances
where the court has interpreted the plain language of the Constitution
in a way that makes the language ineffective. But let’s go beyond that.
Anyone who has studied law will know that not every troubling decision,
particularly at the level of apex courts anywhere in the world, involves
howling errors — those usually relate to cases involving evidence at trials.
US Supreme Court decisions that helped entrench racism were seen as largely
defensible (legally speaking) by many jurists of the time; it was just
another interpretation. Apex courts engage in interpretation and hence
furtherance of world views. And, when courts do decide
to resort to activism they couple language with notions that appeal to
the emotions. The acceptance that they then search for is political and
not legal. Legal nuances can become
irrelevant because the audience changes. They use the rhetoric of things
that sell; think Islam and Insaaf. Examples abound; language invoking
Hazrat Umar and the case of his son, media images of one suffering family
from some village appearing before the SC. In the latter case, others
suffering similar plight may never be relevant to the court or our imaginations
because neither the court nor the media deals with the deeper issues.
If we are critical of politicians who suspend one officer in front of
the media but never deal with the underlying problem, then why not apply
the same standards to an apex court that admonishes police officers in
isolated cases but never does anything to improve the availability of
justice to the common man at the grassroots level, i.e. courts of first
instance? Recently a retired judge
from across the border expressed views very critical of our Supreme Court.
His criticism should remind us of the dangers present and potential. When
an apex court sees its source of authority as acceptance and popularity
among a section of the people and media rather than the Constitution,
there are reasons to worry. Activism means courts
can borrow from any country or ideology or holy text when it deems fit.
Every institution that is immune from democratic accountability should
exercise utmost caution when telling us what our democracy should look
like. Judging an apex court through consequence based reasoning, i.e.
you like the result, is dangerous in the absence of clear standards. Today
you might like it, tomorrow you may not. That is not how one should read
a Constitution. And, I won’t blame you if you are an alien and, by this
point, want to go back to your own planet. Some of us don’t have that
luxury. If the court sees the
Lawyers’ Movement as the equivalent of the events of 1947 (it has said
so), then this isn’t about the Constitution or you and me anymore; it
is about destiny and the men in robes who know how they want to shape
it. The only problem is that you and I can’t hold them accountable. If
you believe in democracy, you should be worried about how an activist
court will shape not just democracy but the quality of that democracy
too. The past of our Supreme Court is not flattering. And, as an Honourable
Justice recently said, “But perhaps the ghosts of the past do not so easily
depart.” The writer is a Barrister
and has a Masters in Law from Harvard Law School. He can be reached at
wmir.rma@gmail.com or on Twitter @wordoflaw.
Judicial accountability
is a sensitive subject (to say the least) in our land. Attempts to conduct
a debate on the issue is quickly labelled as contemptuous by some, and
seen as a scheme of undermining the ‘independence of judiciary’ by others.
Those among us who dare to venture into such discussion do so at our own
peril, with muted voices and apologetic tones. It is like touching the
Holy Grail, or going to the top of Mount Toor — first you have to take
your shoes off and then bow as a symbol of servitude. But what exactly is judicial
accountability? How is it
currently placed in our existing legal paradigm? Is there a need to rethink
the contours and institutional mechanism of judicial accountability? And,
why is it such a sensitive topic? Each of these questions requires a deeper
analysis. Judicial accountability,
at its core, is the idea that judges (who are entrusted with the solemn
duty of delivering justice in our realm) must be held to some standard
of intellectual, professional and personal integrity. Importantly, the
circumference of judicial accountability reaches beyond simply ensuring
that the judges are financially or materially honest; it extends to encapsulate
a debate on the intellectual sanctity of the judgments delivered. It has been argued that
judicial accountability is discordant with the idea of judicial independence.
I disagree. In fact, I would insist that the two ideas are complementary
in nature. It is only when judiciary is held accountable for its actions,
thus making the personal and professional conduct of judges beyond reproach,
that independence and sanctity of their judgments will be established. To limit the ambit of
this discussion, I am going to contain myself to the extent of superior
judiciary. From the process perspective, judicial accountability can be
bifurcated into two distinct stages: first, at the time of appointing
a judge; and second, during the course of judicial tenure. Prior to the enactment
of the 18th Constitutional Amendment, our jurisprudence had developed
in a manner that gave the Chief Justice of Pakistan the sole prerogative
of judicial appointment, without any objective method of assessing why
one candidate was preferred over the other. As a result, the lawyer’s
relationship with the bench was often just as important as his/her competence
and temperament for being elevated to the superior judiciary. The 18th Amendment made
a bold attempt to break this hegemony. Keeping the mechanics aside, through
the insertion of Article 175A of the Constitution, a “Judicial Commission”
(comprising the Chief Justice, two most senior judges of the Court, a
former Chief Justice/Judge recommended by the Chief Justice, Federal Law
Minister, the Attorney General, and a nominee of the Bar Council) was
introduced. This Commission, by majority, recommended a candidate to the
“Parliamentary Committee” (comprising four members each from the Senate
and the National Assembly, in equal proportions from the government and
opposition), that could ‘not confirm’ the nominee by three-fourth majority
within 14 days (giving reasons), barring which the nominee was confirmed.
The idea behind this two step-process (tilted strongly in favour of the
recommendations made by the judges on the Commission) was to infuse ‘outside’
assessment into judicial appointments process. So offensive was this
suggestion that the 18th Constitutional Amendment (passed with the support
of all major political parties) was challenged before the honourable Supreme
Court (and almost struck down), on the ground that Article 175A was an
attack on the ‘independence of judiciary’. Is ‘outside’ review of a judicial
nominee really so abhorrent? Do the appointees in the United States Supreme
Court, for example, not go through a rigorous and televised questioning
by the Senate of that country? Does the process undermine their independence?
Why are we so opposed to infusing layers of accountability in judicial
appointment, instead of making it the prerogative of Chief Justice alone?
Have we not known Chief Justices in the past that we are not too proud
of? Regardless, as a compromise
of sorts, the 19th Constitutional Amendment increased the number of judges
on the Judicial Commission, giving a clear majority to any consensus nominee
of the bench. Fair enough. After confirmation, the
accountability of a judge is primarily governed by the Supreme Judicial
Council, per Article 209 of the Constitution (notwithstanding Sindh High
Court Bar Association judgment that removed numerous judges without recourse
to Article 209). Here too, the allegation of ‘incapacity’ or ‘misconduct’
of a judge are looked into by brethren judges alone, ignoring (in part)
the age-old idea that no person should sit in judgment over a matter concerning
some close associate. Can members of the Supreme Judicial Council be unbiased
actors while deciding on the fate of a brethren judge who they might have
known and worked with for decades? Next, and perhaps the
most debilitating idea to judicial accountability, is the oversensitive
use of the contempt of court law. An objective review of the national
discourse, on media and otherwise, would reveal that our nation is scared
of questioning the intellectual, professional or personal conduct of a
judge, lest we be hauled in on charges of contempt of court. Judicial
respect is one thing (and very important in a democratic society), but
judicial fear is quite another! The society should respect the judges
(to all ends) because their personal conduct and intellectual discourse
commands such respect. Not because the society fears retribution for speaking
up. The latter is oddly reminiscent of the army, while it is in power.
There is enough pettiness
in our system; enough egos of politicians, bureaucrats and generals. Judicial
egos should be above all pettiness. Judges represent the most educated,
the noblest among our society — it is unbefitting a person of such elevated
stature to not be able to take criticism. In fact, it is only through
open and unfettered criticism, of all institutions and individuals that
we can ever hope to improve our collective lot. The existing mechanism
of judicial accountability in our country, which is isolationist in nature,
belongs to a bygone age when the flow and availability of information
was restrictive. It is this closed-door approach to judicial accountability
that breeds resentment among those aggrieved by judicial pronouncements.
And, in turn, this resentment (in part of the society) has drawn a line
in our national conscience — separating ‘us’ from ‘them’. While such attitude
is acceptable in partisan politics, it must stop outside the gates of
judicial empire — which must be transparent and pristine for everyone
to see! Justice Brandeis once
said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” It is time our judiciary accepted
sunlight not only as an instrument of disinfecting the executive, but
also itself. It is time to open the doors of judicial mystique to the
public at large — the final custodians of our Constitution. Let an open
and candid debate commence on new and transparent ways of assessing judicial
performance. The writer is a lawyer
based in Lahore. He has a Masters in Constitutional Law from Harvard Law
School. He can be reached atsaad@post.harvard.edu
|
|
