5
WHAT makes a country like the UK prosperous and one such as Pakistan otherwise? Is it the number of fancy buses plying the roads, the motorways crisscrossing the country or the number of PhDs being churned out by the universities?
I got my answer when I came across the following in Babar Sattar’s column ‘Who’ll save the justice system?’ (Nov 17). He wrote: “In UK, Supreme Court appointments are made under the Constitutional Reform Act, 2005. While the legislation prescribes no process, the selection commission ‘voluntarily’ advertises vacancies even at the apex court level in the interest of transparency.”
That simply spells out the difference between our democracy and the one we are supposedly trying to emulate. They go the extra mile in the interest of transparency whereas we have no interest in transparency. In a landmark judgment a couple of years ago, the Supreme Court of Pakistan directed the government to make all appointments to certain constitutional posts in light of the recommendations of a commission formed for the purpose. However, the government had other ideas and the judgment was never implemented. Only three appointments were made for a list of 58 statutory bodies and public-sector organisations.
The current administration took the stance that Article 90 of the Constitution gave the power of appointments to the federal government and this principle was ignored in the said judgment. The PML-N’s legal wizards used all their experience to make sure the government did not give in to any demand which would eventually take away the discretionary powers of the prime minister.
It is hoped the PM will look beyond loyalists to fill important posts.
This is what the attorney general submitted in court during the hearing of Civil Petition No. 2124/2013 on the issue of filling certain constitutional posts:
“…Various Acts/Ordinances lay down the criteria for high-level appointments and empower the Federal Government to make such appointments, which the Federal Government is bound to follow; that such provisions also inherently envisage the ability of the Federal Government to adopt any suitable manner, method and policy of vetting, assessing and selecting suitable candidates for such appointments according to the peculiar needs and complexities of specific appointments; that when the law provides for a thing to be done in a particular way, it should have been done in that way and in no other way; that none of the Acts/Ordinances envisage any forum or body like the Commission; that an essential function of the Government has been given to the Commission which is against the law; that the Members of the Commission are not accountable to anybody and that since the Commission has no legal status, its Members are not subject to judicial review by the Court, therefore, there is no procedure available to check the possible abuse of power by the Commission.”
Since the argument is convincing, the court revisited the previous judgment and in a recent ruling left it to the sole discretion of the federal government to make such appointments.
I hope when the learned attorney general mentioned “...suitable manner, method and policy of vetting, assessing and selecting suitable candidates” he did not mean a case like the appointment of the prime minister’s daughter with no qualification in public dealing or finance as head of the largest loan-disbursing scheme of the government, or that of the recently appointed vice-chancellor of Allama Iqbal Open University, who happens to be a brother of an adviser to the prime minister.
The said gentleman must be qualified to head AIOU, but in the interest of transparency perhaps he should have shown reluctance in accepting the position considering his brother’s closeness to the ruling party. Further, the referral of the last Pakistan Cricket Board chief as the country’s nominee for the slot of International Cricket Council president must have something to do with peculiar needs and complexities beyond the comprehension of mere mortals like me.
The court also observed in the judgment that now that there are no impediments in the process of appointments to the offices in the statutory bodies and public-sector companies, they should be filled without further loss of time by the end of December, 2014.
I hope the prime minister will look beyond party loyalists, friendly journalists and relatives to fill these posts. Though there is nothing in the law that can stop the honourable prime minister from in fact appointing them, what all decision-makers must realise is that people are remembered for upholding the spirit of the law.
At the end of the day the choice is between love for the people and lust for power. The recent judgment of the apex court means it is time for the prime minster to decide.
The writer is a former civil servant.
Published in Dawn, November 28th, 2014
