Discriminatory style development

KAWISH writes that the government has prepared a Rs90 billion annual development programme for next year, which would be finally approved by the National Economic Council on June 8. The projects of the Sehwan barrage, Karachi Expressway, Khairpur-Larkana bridge on the Indus and raising the storage capacity of the Mangla Dam have not been included in it. One billion rupees have been allocated for the Rs10 billion scheme of improving Sindh’s irrigation system, and Rs300 million for Reni canal and Kachi canal each while the Thal canal project has received Rs2.5 billion.

These allocations show government priorities and the disproportionate attention it devotes to different provinces. The country is confronted with the most severe water crisis of its history, which has created a crisis of confidence between Sindh and Punjab. However, instead of resolving this problem by taking the non-controversial project of raising the water storage capacity of the Mangla Dam, the project has not been included in the programme while the disputed Thal canal project has received the major chunk of money meant for water projects. It means that the need for increasing water storage capacity has been sacrificed at the altar of a project of water use, designed for Punjab only.

The announcement of the construction of the Sehwan barrage and Reni canal and the improvement of Sindh’s irrigation system were made by President Gen Pervez Musharaaf during his referendum campaign and he had promised that soon work on the barrage would begin and Rs2 billion would be released for improvement of the irrigation system. The exclusion of the barrage scheme from the annual development plan and allocation of half of the promised amount for the irrigation system improvement has led the people to ask whether the president had made these promises to only get the votes of Sindh’s people in his referendum.

Sindh is very confused. On the one hand, it gets next to nothing from Islamabad and, on the other, announcements made for the development of this neglected province hardly materialize. And when they do, low-priority projects are taken up. In the present era of decentralization, the right to decide and implement provincial uplift schemes should be given to the provinces. Thus instead of making decisions about development projects of Sindh (and other provinces) in Islamabad, this right, with the funds and the authority to use them, should be given to the province(s) so that it could evolve and implement projects according to its needs and priorities.

Lamenting the government decision to deregulate drug prices, Tameer-i-Sindh says that because of this decision the government will lose control over the prices of 3,000 medicines. It has already lost control over the prices of 12,000 drugs since 1994. When implemented, the latest decision will raise the prices of the remaining drugs overnight. This decision will make the IMF and multinational pharmaceutical companies happy but it will add to the woes of the people who are already deprived of health facilities.

Criticizing the doctors’ strike, Ibrat agrees that the medical community is facing several problems plus the government’s indifference towards them but it is the patient who has to suffer due to the strike. So the doctors should refrain from observing strike and adopt other ways to register their protest. And the government too should pay heed to the cries of the doctors and resolve their outstanding problems.

Sindhu not only condemns police failure to recover Prof Hussain Leghari, a prominent surgeon, from the kidnappers but also criticizes the hollow claims of the law-enforcers to recover him early. It demands concrete steps for protecting doctors and eliminating the kidnapping-for-ransom industry.

Referring to a recent bloody encounter between the police and outlaws near Larkana in which the lives of a couple of police officials were also lost, Awami Awaz says that without purging the police department of black sheep peace cannot be restored to Sindh. The Larkana shootout, once again, makes one ponder that is it the fate of the province to keep on enduring the trauma of lawlessness for ever. If something is not done to curb this anarchic situation, the impression that some vested interests also lie behind this phenomenon will be strengthened.

Dispensation of speedy justice

A VISIT to lower courts adjudicating on civil and criminal matters in Lahore reveals that a large number of litigants in civil matters spend half their lives in seeking redress of their grievances. There is no denying the fact that to be effective and responsive to the growing needs of the litigants, the judicial system stands in need of radical reform.

The judges and magistrates seem to be hard pressed by the workload. They have to deal with hundreds of cases daily. An additional district and sessions judge in Lahore once told me that he had to deal with an average of 80 cases a day, most of which were adjourned on frivolous grounds as the lawyers did not come fully prepared to his court.

The list of cases put up outside his courtroom pointed to the incredible fact that a civil judge in Lahore was required to hear 205 cases a day, which was humanly impossible. Included in those cases were a large number in which witnesses were to be produced by the plaintiffs and cross-examined by the defence lawyers. The judge, who was to hear 205 cases, could not have spent more than a minute and 30 seconds on each case. According an estimate, the total number of minutes that a judge is supposed to spend in court comes to 375, which divided by 205, gives him less than two minutes to spend on one case. That was not a stray incident. All judges “hear” a large number of cases daily.

Pressure of work, shortage of judges, inefficiency, recalcitrance and corruption among court officials, have marred the judicial system of the country, which seems to have fallen far behind schedule. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants, as also their counsel, have contributed to turning these low paid court officials into corrupt, lethargic and uncooperative individuals. To get out-of-turn favours in such matters as the examination of files and procurement of copies of documents, they offer money to the court employees, a temptation, which is almost irresistible for them.

Taking justice to people’s doorstep is a requirement of good governance, but has lost its meaning and his almost become a joke now. The people now demand radical reforms.

A shortage of civil and sessions judges has been one of the major causes of undue delay in the disposal of cases. In the Punjab alone, the judiciary needs over 250 more civil and 100 additional sessions judges to deal with about 400,000 pending cases in the lower courts. Thus justice is being denied to thousands of citizens as a result of these shortage and due to the vexatious litigation procedure.

A majority of litigants in the country seems to have become disillusioned as its problems have been compounded by the inordinate delay in seeking legal redress to their grievances. To its woes, prevarication by the witnesses and filibustering by the defendants have added much because the judges cannot discipline the witnesses as the system does not allow them to do so. Overwhelmed by the frustration caused by a tortuous legal procedure, a majority of litigants tends to take the law in its own hands. To combat the socially harmful fallout, the government should take immediate remedial steps so that some relief can be provided to the aggrieved parties caught in an unending litigation process.

Occasional suspension of a few civil judges and dismissal of several others in the Punjab points to the seriousness of the situation. At the same time, it indicates that the higher courts are taking note of the malaise that has afflicted the judicial system. But these ad hoc measures to not offer a permanent solution to the deep-rooted problem with which our judicial system seems afflicted. More enduring and radical reforms are needed to put the judiciary back on the rail. It is learnt that the Pakistan Law Commission has already done the groundwork for judicial reforms. It has proposed a number of procedural changes and necessary amendments in laws to deal with delay in the dispensation of justice. For example, it took a citizen 27 years to protect his property against incursions by land grabbers. The process it cost him a fortune.

Failure of the government to separate the judiciary from the executive has caused unbearable hardship to a large number of justice seekers as they have to wait for many years for the courts to adjudicate their cases.

The first principle of good governance in an Islamic state is to ensure that justice is dispensed fearlessly and speedily; the second enjoins that all considerations, not related to the issue under consideration, are eliminated. The element of equality in an Islamic legal system is emphasized so that a citizen develops sympathy and understanding for his fellow human beings, and those who administer justice do not act in a ruthless and unforgiving manner.

Does the judicial system currently in vogue in Pakistan meet these requirements? — Saeed Malik