ALL is well. The sun shines upon the multicoloured heads of our beloved rulers, and things in the Republic chug along as per normal.
A news item in the press on Dec 14 made our hearts glow. We read that the (totally unsuitable) caretaker prime minister, glossy-headed Mohammedmian Soomro, is leaving today to perform what is obligatory upon all those who rule in this land — Haj at the expense of the adoring people. And happily for him, he is not going alone. He has company. An entourage which reportedly comprises 35 men and 15 women all described as “his close associates and officials of PM and Senate secretariats”. They are all “on the invitation of Soomro … but it is not clear who would bear the expense of this special delegation to be airlifted on a special flight.” Well, to you and me it is abundantly clear — it is us.
The ambassador of the Kingdom called upon our caretaker and assured him that he and his entourage would be right royally received. Bully for our cheerleaders — may all their sins be washed away (temporarily)!
The judiciary is not so felicitous. We, what has come to be known as civil society, want an independent judiciary. But the government of the day would rather, obviously, have a subservient judiciary. It has dubbed our pre-Nov 3 judiciary as ‘non-cooperative’, meaning it did not fit in with the dictates of the executive and therefore had to be shunted out.
This attitude is nothing new. From 1954 onwards the judiciary has remained a target of all who have occupied our power seats. Looking no further back than last century’s decade of democracy, when our two democrats battled it out, with the army’s connivance, and managed to get in for two alternating terms each, we had Benazir Bhutto appointing and then being disappointed and acting, and Nawaz who had the Supreme Court physically raided and then subsequently amended the laws allowing him to get away with it scot-free.
Now, in this 21st century, President General Pervez Musharraf rid himself of the meddlesome chief justice he had appointed, and who had duly sworn an oath to him, merely by declaring an emergency (constitutional, of course) and thus suspending fundamental rights. In his defence he cited President of the United States Abraham Lincoln who had declared an emergency in the 19th century.
Our two prime ministers of last century were both ousted twice for incompetence, corruption and various other sins of commission and omission; one ended up in self-exile the other in imposed exile. These same two (though Musharraf has no love lost for either), this century, have been invited back from their comfortable high-life exiles to participate in the general elections of Jan 8, 2008.
Why? Easy to answer — to lend legitimacy to the election and its ‘fair and free’ process, Musharraf in his eight years in the national saddle not having been able to raise a new class of younger untainted politicians with no heavy baggage hanging from their fulsome necks. Interpol had issued ‘red warrants’ against one and are now confused as they do not know whether the warrants are off or on.
All we can console ourselves with is the fact that there are far worse off countries in this world. However, this does not justify at all the imposition of emergency on Nov 3 when the people were deprived of many of their fundamental rights including the right to file a writ of habeas corpus.
What is this great fundamental right? In Britain of 1679, following judicial rulings, the writ of habeas corpus was issued by a superior court in the name of the sovereign, and commanded the addressee (a lower court, sheriff or private subject) to produce the prisoner before the royal courts of law. A habeas corpus petition could be made by the prisoner himself or by a third party on his behalf and, as a result of the Habeas Corpus Acts, could be made regardless of whether the court was in session, by presenting the petition to a judge.
The right of habeas corpus — or rather, the right to petition for the writ — has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. The Habeas Corpus Acts “declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty” (Albert Venn Dicey). In most countries the procedure of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of national emergency. (The reach of habeas corpus is currently being tested in the United States.)
Our former chief justice, now declared dismissed, retired, defunct, was pursuing the case of some 200 ‘missing persons’ (the ‘disappeared’ of Pakistan). He was unable to find them. On one excuse or the other, the government lawyers and the ‘agencies’ declared their inability to produce them and their ignorance of what had happened to them. Justice Chaudhry was frustrated, helpless. After his departure it is unlikely that this case will be revived by the court as it is unfriendly towards the executive.
Now, with conviction I will say that President Musharraf is not a vindictive man, but however camouflaged he remains a military dictator. He has managed to keep himself from becoming an insufferable despot — so far. He is certainly not a bigot at heart and believes in enjoying life, a gift of God. He would surely not wish to be remembered as a vengeful man.
Does he, as head of state and de facto head of everything in it, not owe some sort of explanation to the distressed, to the hundreds (if not thousands) of mothers, fathers, wives, children, sisters, brothers of these citizens of Pakistan who remain on the ‘missing persons list’. Why can he not tell them how and why the 200-odd souls were picked up by his dreaded agencies, and either disposed of, tortured, maimed, sold to the United States, died in custody, or that it has been proven that they are absconders who have joined the Taliban or Al Qaeda and simply disappeared. He must know the numbers and the details — if he doesn’t he should as he has often referred to them as being citizens who have run off without telling anyone to join the terrorists that flood the country.
Can he not put himself in place of the distressed and show some sort of feeling for them? After all he has a gentle, loving mother and wife and loving children. Can he imagine how they would feel were he to suddenly disappear from their lives?
One other matter now pending in the Supreme Court is the case filed by Asghar Khan against the military generals of the ISI for their distribution of public funds to influence a general election. Can Chief Justice Abdul Hamid Dogar not locate this human rights petition (HRC 19/96), speedily hear it and decide before January 8? As the law stands, the ISI and its sister agencies can fiddle with the elections to guarantee that they are ‘free, fair and transparent’ to the detriment of the people.
arfc@cyber.net.pk