December 16, 2007...9:05 am

Pakistan: Have you no sense of decency, sir?

Jump to Comments

by Feisal Naqvi

There may be different points of view about the CJP and whether he was acting in an appropriate manner prior to November 3. But there are no two views about the fact that prior to that date he was indeed the CJP and had served the cause of justice in Pakistan as a lawyer and as a judge for many years

On June 9, 1954, Senator Joseph McCarthy was conducting hearings related to his claim that there were a number of communists and communist sympathisers in the US government and armed forces. As part of his vendetta, McCarthy made a gratuitous assault upon a young lawyer named Fred Fisher, not because Fisher represented a target for him, but because Fisher worked for a law firm whose senior counsel represented the Army in the Congressional hearings.

The senior lawyer made a number of attempts to dissuade McCarthy, but to no avail. Ultimately, when it became clear that McCarthy intended to take steps which would destroy the young lawyer’s career, the senior lawyer was finally goaded into a fitting response.

“Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator; you’ve done enough.” And when McCarthy indicated that he would not rest, came the final response: “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

I am reminded of these words and of that incident by the headline in today’s newspaper which informs me that a learned justice of the Honourable Lahore High Court has asked Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, and Mr Justice Rana Bhagwandas, the senior puisne judge of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, to appear in person — repeat, in person — to come and explain why they refuse to vacate their official residences.

There are a number of points to note in this regard. The first point is the most obvious: the two learned judges have not vacated their official residences as yet because they are being kept under house arrest in those official residences by a large contingent of armed police officers. This is a known fact and the court may, if it pleases, take judicial notice of it.

The second point is tactical. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the writ in question (that is, the one in which this order seeking the personal attendance of two judges has been passed) is not the product of an individual grievance but has instead been “encouraged” by some well-wishers of the current establishment. If so, my question is this: Are you out of your mind?

This government has with great difficulty and with considerable cost to its self-image managed to incarcerate its chief justice. It doesn’t need telling that this move has not gone down well with lawyers and that the legal community has had to be thrashed and beaten into a sullen silence. If the two learned gentlemen whose presence has been requested in person were to actually appear in person, the hearing would also be attended by every single disgruntled lawyer in person,in which case the riotous consequences would also be predictable.

And what if, a lawyer for the chief justice appears and says that he cannot appear in person because he is under house arrest? Or worse still, what if a lawyer for the chief justice’s lawyer appears and states at the rostrum that neither the chief justice, nor the senior puisne judge, nor their counsel can appear because they are all under house arrest? What then? What will the learned and honourable judge of the Lahore High Court say then? Will he proceed with the case?

If so, the proceedings will be a farce. On the other hand, will the honourable judge of the Lahore High Court have the galls (to use a popular malapropism) to direct the police to produce the two vagabond judges and their lawyer? If so, will the police listen? And if not, why expose yourself in such a cruel manner?

The final point then is moral. Whether one likes it or not, there are different points of view about the Chief Justice of Pakistan and whether he was acting in an appropriate manner prior to November 3, 2007. But there are no two views about the fact that prior to that date he was indeed the CJP and had served the cause of justice in Pakistan as a lawyer and as a judge for many years.

The same applies with equal force to Mr Justice Rana Bhagwandas. It may be that because of the shifting tides of political fortune, these two gentlemen are no longer able to continue as judges till the end of their constitutional tenure but that does not take away from the fact that they certainly were judges of the Supreme Court of this country. And that even as former judges, they are entitled to be treated with a minimum of respect and dignity.

And so I ask: Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

The writer is an advocate and can be reached at laalshah@gmail.com. This article was first published in the Daily Times.

3 Comments

  • “I don’t know this law,” said K…. “It probably exists only in your heads.”
    THE TRIAL

    With each passing day the inner machinations of Pakistan’s bureaucracy assume ever more Kafkaesque overtones. The situation would be comically farcical if were not so sinister. Without trying to sound like a loony anarchist who’s losing it, it seems that only a major revolution can succeed in cleansing the Augean Stables that our country has become.

  • Am amazing article. Since i only read Dawn and The News, i missed this article but am thanksful to PTH for letting us read it again.
    I think the very fact that they took oath under PCO ends the whole argument and leaves no room for any doubt. The readers should start thinking beyond it. Such behaviour is very much expected from them. The irony of the matter is that we have loads and loads of incidents in which our fellow Pakistanis acted in similar ways and sided with the traiotors but the collective memory of our nation is very limited and we forgave them later on.
    If we had made an example out of these people, i am sure no one would have dared to follow them again.
    Regards,
    M Junaid Khan
    http://thelandofpure.blogspot.com/

  • The ex-justices are begining to act like qabza groups. A number of them have been interviewed on TV saying they will not vacate government property because they are, in their minds, still in office. Here, is the thing. Those houses, are the fringe benefits that came with the job. Now, there are other gentlemen who hold those offices and are being denied their rightful residence in these properties.

    Illegal occupation of government property is nothing new to the ex-CJP. Occupation of a Sindh High Court property was one of the many charges in the presidential referance that the supreme court had thrown out summarily.

    These guys need to grow up. If you take a stand be prepared to take the hits if you are on the loosing side. The maximum these guys can stay in those houses is until the elections. After elections, the new government, whichever it is will be asked by the court to remove the qabza group.

Leave a Reply