KARACHI: A book titled A History of the Judiciary in Pakistan by renowned lawyer Hamid Khan was launched at the Karachi Press Club on Tuesday evening.
Retired justice of the Supreme Court Wajihuddin Ahmed, who was the chief guest on the occasion, said the book was an inside and lawman’s account of how the superior courts had functioned during the country’s existence for the past 70 years. It was informative and revealing in many aspects. Regarding some of the controversial cases discussed in the book, starting from the Tamizuddin Khan case and ending with the Asma Jilani case, he said the author had rightly mentioned that one step taken in the wrong direction could hardly be corrected by subsequent steps taken in the right direction. Talking about a couple of cases given in the book, he said that when Gen Ziaul Haq suspended the Constitution, legitimacy was accorded through the Begum Nusrat Bhutto case. He said the author had amply demonstrated how the case was decided. It was followed by the Z. A. Bhutto case, he said.
Referring to his father, Justice Wahiduddin, and by developing his arguments on the cases, Justice Wajihuddin said very little had been said on the merit of Bhutto’s conviction — either bias or technicalities clouded the issue. He said perhaps a dispassionate analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case were overdue. After Gen Zia’s death, he said, a democracy of sorts was ushered in which was, once again, disrupted by Gen Musharraf. He said he (Musharraf) was legitimised through the Zafar Ali Shah case, and lasted till 2007/08 when followed by the lawyers’ movement he was rendered a ‘lame duck’.
Since 2008, he said, we again had some semblance of democracy. “The history of the judiciary in Pakistan is more or less a history of judicial responses to successive military interventions,” he remarked. He said there had been too many martial laws, besides the five full-blown afflictions, including the civilian martial law of Z. A. Bhutto. He said countries in the Third World should never forget that few mega events occurred here without oversight from abroad. He said it was obvious that as and when one-window operation was required, “cometh the hour, cometh the man”. The way out was only if the civilian government performed, he said.
Former governor of Sindh Kamal Azfar said reading the different chapters of the book made us realise that justices were not super humans — they too had weaknesses. Taking issue with the author’s views, he said the role of Justice Munir needed a slight review. About Justice Cornelius, too, Mr Azfar said that though he was a great judge he helped the drafting of the LFO. He said a chapter on the 18th amendment was missing from the book (perhaps because the manuscript was sent earlier than that period). He rounded off his speech by saying there was the need for only one amendment and that was ‘repeal all the amendments’.
Former Attorney General of Pakistan Munir A. Malik said history had two clear meanings: one was described by Toynbee as “history is the transformation of tumultuous conquerors into silent footnotes”; the second was contemporary history. Beginning to explain the second one he said two real (haqeeqi) former chief justices were on stage — Justice Wajihuddin and Justice Sarmad Jalal Usmani. Mr Malik said the author of the book, Hamid Khan, was one of the few lawyers who had written copiously. He said as Mr Azfar he did not agree with many things written in the book, but it was Hamid Khan’s version of things as he saw them. The version, however, had appeared when the judges discussed in the book were no longer in office, he said.
Dr Syed Jaffer Ahmed said the book had three salient features. First, it was in chronological order. Two, it talked about some very important cases. Three, it discussed the different judges and their conduct. He said what came out of the book was that the judiciary had fought the battle for its survival; it had been involved in judicial activism; areas where its legal competence was found lacking; the fact that it had no set philosophy. He said people expected a lot from the judiciary but forgot that it was one of the institutions of the state. If the state was thought to be a national security state, then the judiciary would operate in that paradigm, he said.
Faisal Siddiqui said the book focused on two aspects, constitutional cases and the judiciary’s relationship with the political and military executive.
Zahid Khan said he had learnt a great deal from the speeches and he might add some of the information provided by the speakers to the next edition of the book. He thanked them for appreciating his ‘humble’ contribution.
A. H. Khanzada also spoke. The event was organised by Piler, the literary committee of the Karachi Press Club and Rasheed Rizvi Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights at Piler.
Published in Dawn, August 31st, 2016