| May 11, 2008 | Sunday | Jamadi-ul-Awwal 5, 1429 |
|
No ‘goonda-gardi’
THIS past week was eventful in the Sindh High Court. The cries of the aggrieved Anwar Mahmood were heard on May 9 by a division bench comprising Mrs Justice Qaiser Iqbal and Mr Justice Mahmood Alam Rizvi.
Anwar Mahmood is the unfortunate borrower — a bank, the eager lender. Circumstances prevented the borrower from repaying his loans so the bank sent in its heavies to threaten and collect. The police did not intervene. The court did. It summoned all the CEOs and recovery officers of almost every single Karachi bank. It restrained all the banks from using bully-boy tactics — ‘no goonda-gardi’ said the judges, and the police were admonished for not doing their job. Mahmood is represented by Haider Imam Rizvi and Tahmasp Razvi.
Next, the same day before the same court, came the case of the Gizri Road flyover being built by the Defence Housing Authority, about which I wrote last week. The DHA lawyers appeared, and they were heard. The court did not withdraw the previous stay order. The powerful DHA has to follow the law and the laid-down procedures.
Another case of importance was heard in the SHC last week before the same two judges.
The City Council has passed a resolution commercialising Khayaban-i-Saadi and Khayaban-i-Jami in Clifton. The Karachi Grammar School, on behalf of its students and their parents, has intervened on safety grounds and stated that the commercialisation will create a situation whereby they will not be able to fulfill their responsibilities towards the pupils. The court suspended the resolution and the matter will be taken up on May 15. The NGO Shehri and I are filing applications to be made parties to the case. As many aggrieved parents as may be concerned about this new development should also stand up for their children and come forward to assist the court. Further devastation must be stopped.
Back to the 9th when the citizens’ case involving Kidney Hill Park also came up for hearing in the court of Justices Munib Ahmed Khan and Syed Pir Ali Shah (it has been under litigation for 16 years). The secretary of one of the respondents, the Overseas Cooperative Housing Society, Captain Ejaz Haroon, has just been appointed the managing director of PIA. One of the judges who had heard the case was last month transferred out of Karachi and the matter was not taken up as it was part heard.
Suddenly, on May 2, the transferred judge returned to Karachi for one day, and the Society that very same day filed an urgent application for the case to be heard. The court ordered that the citizens’ lawyers, ‘Gilbert’ Naim ur Rahman and Rizwana Ismail, be located in the SHC so that the case could proceed on the same day. They were not in court so the matter was adjourned to May 9.
That day, Gilbert, whose integrity cannot be questioned by anybody, filed an application before the court. He stated that as he has issues in another case relating to one of the judges sitting on the division bench, and as the Kidney Hill case appears to be clearly political, for the first time in his life (he has been practising for 45 years) he has been forced to state that he does not feel it appropriate for him to proceed in the matter. The court referred the case to Chief Justice Afzal Soomro requesting that orders be passed by May 16. We are sure that he will ensure a fair hearing.
Chief Justice Soomro, meanwhile, has had various contentious matters to deal with. For one, a case filed against Kamran Khan of Tessori (the jewellers) came up before him. Mr Makhdoom Ali Khan initially represented the defendant but was subsequently replaced by Mr Nafees Siddiqui. Counsel for the petitioners is Mr Anwar Mansoor Khan.
Written arguments were filed on the first day of Mr Siddiqui’s representation without Anwar having even begun his arguments. Anwar, naturally alarmed, filed an application stating that his clients have no faith in the bench. It was, in effect, dismissed along with his petition there and then. Anwar immediately filed a reference against Chief Justice Soomro and sent it up to the Supreme Judicial Council where it rests.
There are many such cases and happenings in all the courts of the land and all cases are handled on both sides by lawyers, some of whom hold high positions in society, some of whom are president or ex-presidents and chairmen of bar associations and bar councils. All have attempted to fight long and hard for what they believe to be an independent judiciary.
It also seems odd to the layman that they are reluctant to reform themselves, to improve their standards, and to ensure that no lawyer will go to court and allow the abuse of the law. This, of course, is up to the moral conscience of each individual lawyer.
Can there be an independent judiciary without a legal profession which maintains the highest of standards? Is it mandatory for the Muneer Maliks, the Rasheed Rizvis and the Aitzaz Ahsans to have themselves elected to high posts and profess the independence of the judiciary from positions such as president or chairman of a bar association? Should the bar associations not take action against errant lawyers who not only defraud the public but make a mockery of the law and the judicial system?
How many have so far been taken to task? It seems that the bar councils believe that all their members are dutifully and properly doing their jobs. Perhaps the time has come when, as with the judges, the lawyers who practise in our courts will be required to swear an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in our courts on pain of perjury.
All that can or needs to be said about our judiciary is debated every day in court, in the media and in most sections of society. It has now become a must that institutions be built rather than destroyed. It seems to some of us laymen, out here in the legal cold, that many of our lawyers are now bent on the destruction of institutions rather than on their preservation or resuscitation. The masses at large are untouched by the judiciary, the lawyers and their courtrooms. They have other matters that preoccupy them — such as staying alive. And besides, to them, historically, the courts and courtrooms have always appeared to be the domain of the rich and powerful, not of the poor and needy.
arfc@cyber.net.pk
