Desperate
Measures
By Mahjabeen Islam,
MD
Toledo, Ohio
There are times in life and
country that desperate measures are needed. And
like raising children it is vital that the punishment
fit the crime. More importantly, the means to
that end acquire even greater gravity.
One morning in America we awoke to the shock of
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar
Muhammad Chaudhry, being made non-functional by
a military head of state, for allegations of abuse
of power. Article 209 of the constitution was
invoked and the matter was referred to the Supreme
Judicial Council, which shall sit in judgment
on March 13th, 2007.
About three weeks prior an open letter to the
Chief Justice by Advocate Naeem Bokhari made the
rounds on the Internet, in which the theme of
abuse of power and passion for protocol were repeated
in each paragraph. And now another complainant
from Peshawar has joined the media trial against
the Chief Justice.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry took oath in 2005
and was tenured to 2013. Reports prior to and
after his suspension confirm that he worked at
an unprecedented rate and whittled down the immense
backlog of cases in the Supreme Court. He was
particularly partial to human and women’s
rights and the environment. He ruled on the merit
of the case and not the respondents, causing deep
embarrassment and exposure to the government in
the case of the privatization of the Pakistan
Steel Mills and the allotment of plots in Gwadar.
The proverbial last straw was his handling of
the missing persons’ case, in which he demanded
a list from the government as well as their production,
for it appears that the government was making
them go missing.
Now we all have our quirks. He liked being escorted
by a motorcade of police. But was that grandiosity
or caution? Judges have been killed multiple times
in Pakistan, two in recent memory. The president
of the United States has two decoy planes, Musharraf
travels with three Mercedes decoy cars, the mortal
threat to them being quite obvious. Handing down
decisions in which 50% of the time one party is
very unhappy raises the stakes and the threat
to the Chief Justice.
He flew in an official plane to a couple of events
and wanted a wing of a rest house for his own
use alone. People were deferential to his son,
because dad was the Chief Justice. So? If fair
comparison is made, even in contemporaneous times,
the Chief Justice would not take the prize for
corruption; he would probably trail the list.
If principle is adhered to then it must be applied
across the board. How appropriate is it for the
Prime Minister of Pakistan to hold permanent residence
of the United States, and the allegiance to another
nation that that status implies? Is it principled
to engineer a trip to the United States just so
that one can preen in the honor of being the first
prime minister of Pakistan to open the New York
Stock Exchange? Is it fair for Musharraf to promote
his book and make the rounds of talk shows in
the United States on government expense? How appropriate
is it for the then Prime Minister Chaudhry Shujaat
Hussain to go for umra at governmental expense
and tag along a multitude of in-laws? On a dollars
and cents level, these foreign adventures of the
accusers of the Chief Justice break the back of
the taxpayer, police motorcades and rest house
wings are a pittance in comparison.
Government spokesmen parroting the line that the
non-functionality of the Chief Justice was done
in a constitutional manner does not make it correct.
It is sad that Goebbels’ philosophy is used
so often in Pakistan: that you repeat something
often enough and it becomes the truth, even to
you. According to the said article 209 the matter
is to be referred to the Supreme Judicial Council
and only after the SJC has reviewed, investigated
and ruled against him, is the judge to be made
non-functional.
Government spokesmen are busy orchestrating a
media trial and then have the bravado to say that
lawyers and former justices should not interview
with the media as the issue is sub judice.
And now for the desperate measures. One wonders
why the legal advisers to Musharraf are sleeping
on the job. If nothing else they might have informed
him of protocol and constitutional constraints.
The President cannot demand to see the Chief Justice.
He cannot read him the allegations and warrant
an explanation. And horror of horrors, send police
cars to chase him down so that he does not get
to his office and then condemn him to house arrest.
No meeting privileges, even with fellow justices,
no cell phone or even land line privileges, no
television service, no newspapers, impounding
of his cars and having domestic servants deposit
their cell phones and ID cards with security when
they leave. Security even escorts the cook on
his morning market trip.
The core issues of Pakistan are perpetuation of
feudalism and the lack of an independent, intrepid
judiciary. It is one of the saddest days in its
history that not only has the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court been removed unconstitutionally,
he is being treated like a petty thief. No actually,
like an armed and dangerous fugitive.
If the charge of corruption and misuse of power
are correct, one wonders how the Chief Justice
did not calculate that toeing the government line
is really the only way to perpetuate his lust
for that power and the glory. If police motorcades,
private jet jaunts and rest house wings were his
focus, why would he act to actively get them cut
off? Clearly, his dispensation of justice did
not pander to his alleged grandiosity.
And now to “enlightened moderation”.
Justice Rana Bhagwandas was next in line in seniority,
but happened to be on a trip to India at the time.
Justice Javed Iqbal was flown from Karachi to
be made acting Chief Justice. One wonders why
Justice Bhagwandas was not flown in from an equidistant
spot, possibly even a shorter one. Is there a
fear that a Hindu would accede to the top of the
apex court, and the religious of the land would
be antagonized by his ruling in the Federal Shariah
Court? Knowledge of the law and Islam are prerequisites
for the job, one’s own religious orientation
is irrelevant. The analogy that a doctor does
not have to suffer each and every disease in order
to treat it applies well here.
The proceedings of the SJC will be held in camera
for “the respect of the office of the Chief
Justice”. So, when it comes to judicial
deliberations and evidence and witnesses it is
all to be cloistered, but suspending him before
the SJC ruling and confining him to his house
and stripping him of basic dignity is fine —
he is the Chief Justice when he is tried, but
a common man when he was fired.
Former American Ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote
an Op-Ed article in the New York Times accusing
the Bush government of going to war in Iraq under
the false pretenses of it harboring weapons of
mass destruction. This raised the ire of the Bush
government and the identity of Wilson’s
wife Valerie Plame being a CIA operative was leaked.
In this scandal vice-presidential aide Lewis Libby
was indicted on felony and perjury charges. A
sitting president was deeply embarrassed by this
indictment, but justice was served in the bastion
of democracy that the United States is.
In Pakistan though, the law of the jungle applies,
and might has historically been right. With the
treatment meted out to judges in the past, as
well as the carrots that dangle before them for
the future, the decision of the Supreme Judicial
Council is a foregone conclusion.
An Americanism is instructive: “what goes
around comes around”. Even in the jungle.
(Mahjabeen Islam is a freelance columnist and
physician practicing in Toledo, Ohio. Her email
is mahjabeenislam@hotmail.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
