| 17 April 2005 | Sunday | 07 Rabi-ul-Awwal 1426 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Knee-jerk reaction?
No shows in NA again
DETAILS of the proposed changes approved by the cabinet on a wide range of laws on Wednesday are not yet available. But the focus seems to be on lessening the hardships of citizens involved in litigation or a criminal case. Even the best of laws do not serve the ends of justice if those charged with enforcing them and carrying out the necessary processes do not do their job effectively and with dedication. In a Third World country with widespread poverty and illiteracy, especially in the rural areas, the enforcement of laws by the police tends to negate the purpose of justice. People’s complaints against the police do not relate only to bribery and exploitation of women caught in sexual offences; police are also accused of failing to register an FIR and to submit a charge-sheet within the stipulated period. Because of the powers the police have, they are also capable of arresting innocent people for the wrong reasons. To add to the complications, the police are often subject to political manipulation.
The pressure on the police to hound and harass people often comes from local feudal lords as well as politicians. Often, the two are one and the same, because the local feudal is also a politician who may be a minister or sits in the provincial or the federal legislature. Policemen in such cases succumb to pressure and arrest or harass those considered to be their patrons’ political enemies. The proposed changes address some of these issues. For instance, a police officer failing to register an FIR would be liable to prosecution under Article 155 of the Police Order 2002. Similarly, failure to submit a charge-sheet within the prescribed period will lead to a negative entry in the record of the police officer concerned. The amendments with regard to arbitrary arrests need to be effected urgently. It is common knowledge that the police arrest someone by implicating him in a false case. The court may later release him, but the police or individuals on whose behalf the person was arrested achieve their aim by harassing, jailing or defaming him. The proposed change will provide for a jail term of up to seven years for a police officer detaining someone illegally.
The procedural charges sought in the judicial process deserve careful scrutiny. The fundamental problem with the judicial system is the huge backlog. Cases — both criminal and civil — drag on for years, in some cases for more than a decade, because there are too many adjournments. Some lawyers seek and get adjournments sometimes for no other reason than to lengthen the trial period so as to make the other party suffer. Sometimes a lawyer will demand an adjournment because he wishes time to procure and submit documents, etc. This has led to a huge pile of cases and to consequent frustration for the litigant public. The proposed changes in the relevant laws are meant to straighten out the creases in the procedural system so as to ensure a quicker disposal of cases. As Law and Justice Minister Wasi Zafar has said, the “case-load” situation will worsen unless the changes are adopted. About women, the proposed change deserves to be welcomed, for it provides for a woman’s release on bail in all cases except those defined — drugs, terrorism, robbery, dacoity or murder. By implication, women involved in rape cases will also get bail. Under the present Hudood ordinances, a woman is arrested the moment she reports rape and then languishes in prison until the case is decided.
WITH the drama surrounding the arrival of Mr Asif Ali Zardari in Lahore on Saturday over, it is obvious that the government over-reacted to what even otherwise would not probably have been a sensational event. Mr Zardari was not returning home after a long exile, nor can he even claim to be an outstanding political figure who has fought for the cause of democracy and a civilian government. His long incarceration had, of course, created a certain amount of sympathy for him, but that did not necessarily turned him into a national leader. He had left Pakistan on Dec 30 with the government’s permission when a court granted him bail, and the government placed no restrictions on his plans to go abroad to meet his family. All this was seen by the nation in a positive light, and there were rumours that a reconciliation with the PPP was afoot. Even President Pervez Musharraf in an interview with a foreign news agency indicated a spirit of rapprochement with liberal forces. To the people this meant a pleasant change in the government’s approach and appeared to be in line with the president’s disdain for religious extremism and his emphasis on “enlightened moderation”.
However, developments preceding and following Mr Zardari’s landing in Lahore ran counter to the spirit of goodwill that was in the air. It is quite possible that the processions for Mr Zardari might have caused law and order problems and created some of the confusion characteristic of our crowds. To pre-empt this, the government not only imposed Section 144 in Punjab but also cracked down on the PPP. Many party offices were sealed and highways were blocked. Some of the top PPP leaders were detained. The party put the number of overall arrests at 50,000, which may be an exaggeration, but even half that number is stupefying. On the day of arrival, too, many PPP workers, including MNAs, were arrested. The police literally barged into Mr Zardari’s plane, arrested several of those accompanying him from Dubai, and maltreated journalists. The end-result is that it is the government which is the loser, for it gave an impression as if it was panicky. On the other hand, the PPP and Mr Zardari have scored a propaganda victory - with the government conceding more space to Mr Zardari than he might have got
otherwise.
ON Friday, the speaker of the National Assembly again had to adjourn the House for lack of quorum. This is the umpteenth time that this has happened despite the fact that ruling party members have been issued strict warnings recently by their party president, the prime minister and even by the president who commented on the lack of interest shown by ministers and treasury members. But it seems to have had little effect. This non-committal attitude indicates a complete disregard for the proceedings of the House by the elected representatives of the people who are meant to strengthen democratic institutions. It speaks volumes for how they respect top leadership directives. Recently, the PML-Q president announced incentives for members who were regular and punctual in their attendance, but that doesn’t seem to have had any effect as Friday’s head count saw only 35 treasury and 13 opposition members in the 342-member House.
This conduct is unbecoming of the country’s first graduate assembly, and that too one whose members enjoy perks and privileges previously unheard of. It was only in February that MNAs, senators and parliamentary secretaries received a good 15 per cent increase in their salaries which should have served as some kind of encouragement for them to be more regular in their performance as legislators. The issue is compounded when the opposition stages walk-outs as a way to protest and the lack of quorum prevents normal proceedings. This serious problem needs to be tackled in right earnest before the practice of non-attendance becomes more common and lawmaking and debate on issues of national concern go by the board.