Alert Sign Dear reader, online ads enable us to deliver the journalism you value. Please support us by taking a moment to turn off Adblock on

Alert Sign Dear reader, please upgrade to the latest version of IE to have a better reading experience


Safeguarding democracy

Published May 30, 2013 07:54am


Your Name:

Recipient Email:

RECENTLY, the Election Commission of Pakistan appointed certain retired district and session judges as election tribunals. They have been taken out of retirement, on contract basis, for one year. Their appointments are terminable on 30 days’ notice without any reasons.

Following allegations of rigging and demands for results to be nullified, it is important to remember that the tribunals (appointed under Section 57 of the Representation of Peoples Act 1976 and Article 225 and 219 of the Constitution) are the sole legal forum for addressing such disputes. Therefore, it is crucial that these tribunals be of impeccable integrity and on sound legal footing. As presently constituted however, it is doubtful that they are constitutional.

Article 175 states that the judiciary shall be separated from the executive. This one line has created a rich body of jurisprudence that is settled and in line with common sense. The judicial function must be separated from the executive to ensure an impartial and uninfluenced judiciary.

Safeguards essential to ensure the independence of judicial function are at the core of the Constitution. That is why the appointment of judges is led by the judiciary and not the executive, why judges are not under the administrative and financial control of the executive, and why judges have a fixed retirement age. This is at the heart of the constitutional protection afforded to each Pakistani.

It is settled law that nobody can exercise judicial functions without the minimum safeguards mentioned above. Executive appointees cannot perform judicial functions. In Mehram Ali’s case (when the Supreme Court set aside anti-terrorist courts established by Nawaz Sharif’s government) the court stated that, “the Constitution only recognises such specific tribunals to share judicial powers with the courts… which have been specifically provided by the Constitution itself”. One such tribunal is the election tribunal. Do these appointments meet the criteria and safeguards of independence discussed above? No. Do they need to? Yes.

It could be argued that tribunals are created under a specific provision of the Constitution (Articles 219 and 225), therefore their process of appointment does not need to be the same as the appointment of judges under Article 175. Further, the Constitution does not explicitly state that these tribunals must follow the same procedures for appointment as judges — it simply states that the ECP shall appoint them.

However, it is clear these tribunals perform judicial functions. They appraise evidence, determine questions of fact and law, and appeals from their decisions are adjudicated by the Supreme Court. Once we are clear that these tribunals perform judicial functions can we dispute that they must employ the same safeguards as required of normal courts? The Supreme Court has already said that we cannot.

In a decision released on Jan 9, 2013 (Sh. Riaz-ul-Haq vs. Federation of Pakistan), the Supreme Court has said that the service tribunals (Article 212) perform judicial functions, therefore they are courts and all safeguards applicable to the exercise of judicial functions apply to them. By extension this should apply to the election tribunals as well.

Election tribunals, being courts and performing judicial functions, cannot be exempt from following the basic safeguards that ensure an independent judicial tribunal. The Constitution guarantees the right of access to justice, due process of law (Article 9) and the right to a fair trial (Article 10-A).

The basic safeguard to ensure a fair trial ie an independent forum cannot be violated regardless of the constitutional provision under which the body is established. Hence, the Constitution expects that these appointments will meet the safeguards necessary to ensure fairness, impartiality and independence. At present they do not.

A tribunal appointed on contract, for one year, that can be dismissed on 30 days’ notice without any cause fails almost every test of an independent tribunal free from undue influence and is therefore in violation of the fundamental rights mentioned above. Electoral malpractice goes to the heart of democracy. The tribunals deciding these matters must be free from such obvious and concerning defects. Successfully nullifying rigging is the most necessary service to our democracy. Yet this aspect is being ignored.

The Supreme Court that took suo motu notice of a slap by Waheeda Shah during a by-election should also take note of the numerous videos and pictures clearly showing unchecked electoral malpractice in this election. Certain TV anchors have belatedly done one show about it and then stopped. Some anchors have tweeted one thing while saying another on air.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan wants people to, in essence, get over it. The ECP is in self-congratulation mode. The caretaker government and the incoming one are silent. Let’s just be happy that elections happened, they seem to say.

Let’s not. In a democratic Pakistan it is in our interest to diagnose and eliminate rigging. The parties and the ECP should take the initiative. But if they do not, what could better fit the test of public importance and enforcement of fundamental rights that the Supreme Court needs to take notice?

So cautious have we been to not derail democracy, that even legitimate questions are being silenced by opinion-makers for fear of “upsetting the system”. Those raising allegations of rigging are being called sore losers. Those ignoring them are being called mature. It should be the opposite.

A mature democratic leadership would recognise that faith in this process is paramount and it would not arise by simply urging the young and disaffected to ‘get on with it’. Even if those protesting against rigging have other interests it is true that what they are asking for is good for democracy. This should be recognised, not brushed under the carpet.

The writer is a barrister at law.


Your Name:

Recipient Email:

Comments (8) Closed

Ashok R.Prabhu May 31, 2013 02:55am

An excellent article by Mr.Sameer Khosa.His assertion that Judiciary must be fully free from the Executive is based on an important Tenet of Democracy:The Judges must not depend on those whom they Judge.

Ahsan Mlk May 30, 2013 07:23am
Each and every thought here deserves more than just a few minutes of people's time. What strikes the most is: "Those raising allegations of rigging are being called sore losers. Those ignoring them are being called mature. It should be the opposite." Kudos to him who is man enough to speak up!
P.MOHAMED FAHEEM May 30, 2013 08:16am
Iam all for E voting . The problem pakistan
F.Z. May 30, 2013 08:44am
It is ok to protest on rigging now, but when same people including IK and TuQ were protesting on the constitution of ECP a few months ago, all these intellectuals were mum, silently pointing out the immaturity of khanistas and the TuQ party's members. I think, it is welcome that such people on PPP are realizing that the election process needs to be more transparent. I hope when the time comes for next elections in 2013 they uphold these principles.
Amjad Wyne May 30, 2013 11:54am
The writer asks, "Therefore, it is crucial that these tribunals be of impeccable integrity and on sound legal footing". While I agree, I must also ask, "Is there anyone, especially in the legal community, that can meet this requirement?"
javaid bashir May 30, 2013 02:41pm
I see nothing unconstitutional and illegal about the elections tribunal Mr . kuoso tirade fails to disclose the illegality. They have been properly constituted by the ECP.The retired judges have been appointed on contract basis , and there is no illegality there too. I do not know what is the exact problem.. No one has raised any objection so far. Let them probe the rigging and decide about it. We can not create problem when there is none. The election tribunals are ,ike any other Court of Law, and must be given respect. Let them work and find out the truth about the massive rigging allegations of the parties. Although we have clear and convincing evidence to support the allegations. The election process was marred by the blood shedding and indiscriminate rigging. We can not let some one steal the people's mandate. JAVAID BASHIR LAHORE
Mustafa Razavi May 31, 2013 01:56am
" Nawaz Sharif , you can do it for the long term future of Pakistan" Of course he can as he could have twice before. But the foreign establishment that brought him to power would not have brought him to power if they thought Nawaz loves Pakistan.
P.MOHAMED FAHEEM May 31, 2013 02:27pm
The problem pakistan