Former SC judges call for neutral EC and rejects Musharraf ,s Amendments

Six former judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan out of which five have also been Chief Justices of the Sindh High Court have demanded the re-constitution of the Election Commission of Pakistan before General Elections 2008 in agreement with all political parties. Addressing a press conference Tuesday at a local hotel, four of them - Justice Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice Khalilur Rahman Khan and Justice Kamal Mansur Alam – announced that they have formed a Committee for the Rule of Law (CRL), keeping in view the prevailing scenario in the country. They held a meeting in Karachi Monday and considered the constitutionality and the impact of recent amendments made in the Constitution of 1973 by President Pervez Musharraf. After careful consideration, we rejected the constitutional amendments and reiterated our position that any individual, however powerful he may be, has no right to amend the Constitution and that Parliament alone has the authority to do this, they said. They clarified that the only power given to the Supreme Court under the Constitution is to interpret and declare what a particular provision of the Constitution or the law means. The amendment of the Constitution by an individual, therefore, is nothing but an act of usurpation of power of Parliament which cannot be justified on any known principle of jurisprudence. The judges also reiterated their earlier rejection of Gen. (retd) Musharraf’s alleged suspension of the Constitution under the garb of a Proclamation of Emergency, emphasizing that no court, authority or person has any right or jurisdiction to suspend the Constitution. The judges urged political parties not to undertake or validate any of the actions or legislative instruments of Gen. (r) Musharraf done or promulgated since November 03, 2007. The unauthorized amendments to the Constitution, the judges said, have robbed the ongoing process of elections of their credibility. Later, in informal question-answer session, they said that CRL was formed for to establish the rule of law and supremacy of Constitution of Pakistan. To another question, they said that judges removed under PCO-1 of 2007 are still judges, therefore no question of their inclusion in the CRL arises. ar qureshi

Top Of The list....Musharraf and Choudries Pakistan

The latest Global Corruption Barometer, released by the Berlin-based corruption watchdog, Transparency International (TI), places Pakistan at seventh place from bottom on a list of 60 countries ranked on the basis of corruption. The bribes people needed to pay to obtain services that should be available to them free of charge was one of the focal points of the study. As such, the Barometer also addresses the issue of the insidious, petty corruption that people in many countries, including Pakistan, must deal with on a regular basis. While the issue of larger-scale, political corruption has generated considerable national discussion, and has been the topic of heated debate, the dishonesty that exists at the lower levels of the system has perhaps not attracted the degree of attention it deserves. In Pakistan, 44 per cent of respondents surveyed for the study reported paying out bribes. This number compares favourably with that for the Cameroons, where 79 per cent said they had paid out such sums. But before we begin congratulating ourselves on finishing ahead of several countries including Nigeria, Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia on the list, all Pakistanis, and particularly those who play any part in governance or hope to do so in the future, must note that Pakistan fares worse than all its South Asian neighbours, and indeed is, apart from the Philippines which finishes just behind it, the only Asian country included in the bottom ten countries on the list. The general finding that the police department was perceived as the most corrupt of all will also come as no surprise to Pakistanis, particularly those unfortunate enough to have been forced in any way to deal with the police set up at the lower tiers.The findings released by TI come as a reminder that Pakistan still has a long way to go to overcome the curse of corruption, which plagues it at many different levels. Whereas the country had climbed several significant rungs up from the bottom on the corruption ladder during the early years of the current decade, it has, since then, slid down once more. Various studies on the phenomenon of corruption, including academic investigations by Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, have noted that the small-scale corruption which exists within systems is often the hardest to eradicate, but is also the kind of corruption that has the biggest impact on the lives of ordinary people. This is easy to understand if one thinks of the bribes paid out regularly by so many individuals -- to have faulty telephone lines fixed, to have land registrations completed, house plans passed or simply to obtain a driving licence or other document.Because of the scale of its impact, there is a need to place it on a higher priority as an issue. This is both because an improvement in the situation, perhaps by studying how other countries at the same developmental level are able to avoid it on the same scale, would save Pakistan the annual ignominy it suffers when TI releases its list and also spare many people the nuisance and unnecessary waste of much-needed cash resources that come with bribery in all its many forms.

Lie in Action ...Irfan Bukhari......the Nation

She was fulminating on the organisers of the workshop and according to her it was an extravaganza on public exchequer with no fruitful results while having a chunk of pineapple cake in one hand and a cup of sizzling coffee in the other.Dressed up to nines she, a human rights’ activist, was participating in the event at the organiser’s sponsored air ticket and also enjoying an executive suit in a four star hotel of the capital. Speaking English in an artificial accent she said, “ These NGOs in collaboration with international donors and Pakistani ministries are serving nothing at grass root levels. They just deliberate and debate in cold, cosy halls and waste huge amount of money”.She was insistently flaying the trend of conducting seminars and workshops. Taking a bite of sandwich, she noted that she had grave concerns over the culture. She is not alone in criticising the holding of indoor moots. In every such event you would have observed such kind of cognitive dissonance theory stricken ladies and gentlemen. They feel no hesitation in receiving air fares, enjoying tranquil sleeping rooms, sitting in the front rows in a bid to get limelight in media, raising questions and suggesting advices in ‘You Know’ replete English, playing fork and knife at dinning tables, making new friends, shaking hands with ministers and getting certificates. Then why, why they harshly criticise the whole process? Do they want to satisfy their inner selves? Do they desire people’s attraction? Do they want to exhibit their loyalty towards the nation & country? Don’t they have anything else to say to register their contribution in the conference? Are they habitual critics? And in the end has the culture of hypocrisy taken roots so deeply into our national character?May be all such factors play a role to some extent but one thing is dead sure that hypocrisy has emerged as our common habit. We abhor America but dream to get its visa. We condemn corrupt politicians but always cast vote for them. We lambast child labour but employ them to serve in our homes. We dislike dictatorship but not support pro democracy movements by heart and soul. We wish rule of law but do not feel reluctant in violating it. A man or woman when says that such seminars can not introduce any remarkable change in incumbent scenario, he or she must also tell the feasible way to resolve the knots. If they are sincere in their criticism they should not attend such events to be loyal with their own conviction. Abraham Lincoln once said, “He has the right to criticise who has the heart to help”. If critics can do some thing marvellous at the ground then what bars them to do so. “ Hypocrite is man who complains that there is much vulgarity on TV nowadays”, said some anonymous and he said very well. If the critics of seminars and workshops take it as a mere waste of monetary resources then why they become the partners in crime? In the end a quote of Robertson be remembered that notes, “ There are three things in the world that deserve no mercy: hypocrisy, fraud and tyranny”.

Abbi Na Rukna

Observe december 10 ,as a Black day

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan calls upon all members of civil society to observe the Universal Human Rights Day as a "black day". The worst human rights abuses, in the history of the country, were recorded in 2007. The rights of ordinary people have been violated by the government with impunity. More than 400 people have been picked up by security forces and many remain missing. The Musharraf regime obstructed the Supreme Court in providing justice to those who remain disappeared, as well as those who recorded their statements of having suffered extreme forms of torture at the hands of the security forces. Reports of torture, threats, intimidation, and arbitrary arrests run into thousands. Incidents of extrajudicial killings continue to be reported but never investigated.The situation has now reached alarming proportions. The coercive apparatus of the State are being blatantly used against all sections of civil society. The media is chained and free expression censured. Thousands of lawyers, journalists, students, teachers and human rights activists were arrested. A number of them remain incarcerated under deplorable conditions. Lawyers and others have been accused of offences falling under the Anti-Terrorism Act. Thirty-five judges of superior courts have been put under house arrest. The family of the Chief Justice of Pakistan is also confined to their residence. This is unprecedented.The rights of the people are being usurped on the pretext of curbing terrorism. It is the people who are suffering terrorism; both at the hands of non-state militants and state agents. The government has failed to bring militants to justice or to disarm them. On the contrary, at several occasions, the government and its agents have patronized or in the least, ignored criminal acts carried out by militants acting in the name of Islam.HRCP warns that the claim made by Musharraf of moving towards a transition to democracy is a total farce. The assertion is yet another smack on the face of the people of Pakistan. Amendments to the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Act as well as the Army Act are only a few examples of the government's grand plan to subjugate the spirit of peaceful members of civil society. Much more is to follow.HRCP, along with other civil society groups, will organize a black day on the 10th of December. Black flags and bands should be displayed on this unworthy occasion. In order to record the laudable struggle of the legal fraternity of Pakistan HRCP will award the best documentary film made on this movement. All entries are to be submitted by 30 June 2008.Asma JahangirChairperson Human Rights Commission of Pakistan

Nine dead in Nebraska shooting

A 19-year-old man opened fire with a rifle inside a shopping centre crowded with Christmas shoppers in Omaha, Nebraska, on Wednesday, killing eight people and then himself, police said.
Five people were wounded in the rampage at the Westroads Mall, two of them critically, according to hospital spokesmen.
Police said the mother of the gunman brought them a note that was "suicidal" in nature. KETV, a local television station, identified the man as Robert Hawkins.
Witnesses said they hid in bathrooms, closets and under racks of clothes, some praying as an estimated two dozen shots rang through the centre.
The gunman shot one man in the head from a third-floor balcony and others at point-blank range, witnesses said. Some of the victims were waiting in line to get Christmas presents wrapped at Von Maur, an upscale department store.

The case for and against a boycott.... Bilal Hassan Minto

In speculating about how the present turmoil in Pakistani politics will settle, many commentators have laid a lot of importance upon the US factor. One common refrain is that since its war on terror the US has all its eggs foolishly placed in just a single basket called Musharraf, it wants him to continue to be in charge of this Islamic Republic. The trouble with this is that, as soon as Martial Law is lifted, Musharraf will become an ordinary civilian president with only Article 58 (2) (b) of the constitution available for use against a future government. It is unlikely that this power to dissolve the Parliament is all that the US, and Musharraf himself are counting on for arm-twisting the next government. Two other possibilities may therefore be under consideration by our American masters. First, to transfer some of their eggs to another basket, namely a weak, but elected government which will work with a weaker than before Musharraf so that the two can dance to the US's tune with the possibility of one being used against the other if need be. The second is that before he lifts Martial Law, but after the last date for withdrawal of nomination papers (December 14), Musharraf will make sweeping amendments to the constitution giving himself huge powers and secure his place as the US's indispensable ally. If making further amendments to the constitution that give Musharraf more powers is a possibility -- and given his love of power, it certainly is -- the political parties not boycotting the elections need to rethink their decision. It must be understood that Musharraf does not need a future parliament to ratify any amendment that he has or may still make in the constitution. His Supreme Court has already given him the authority to amend the constitution without requiring that such amendments be approved by the next parliament. While it is true that the Supreme Court has laid down some parameters within which they may be made, a challenge to these amendments on the ground that they are outside those parameters will again come for decision before this, same Supreme Court. Its likely decision is anybody's guess. How then, do the parties going into elections, expect to undo these amendments or other laws (which could well include a repeal of the NRO) when by all forecasts none of them is expected to get even a simple, let alone two third majority in Parliament? Not only will those who form a coalition government be unable to undo any of Musharraf's doings, with Article 58 (2) (b) and our intelligence agencies in attendance, they will also be especially vulnerable to threats of destabilization. And where will these parties go to protest the massive rigging that they know will take place? By contesting elections --whether under protest or otherwise -- they would have accepted the entire body of the law under which elections take place. The phrase "participation under protest" is not recognized by these laws and withdrawal from elections or boycott means nothing if nomination papers have not actually been withdrawn. Also, under these laws, challenge to the validity of an election can only be brought before "election tribunals" which comprise of the existing PCO High Court judges. As it is, election cases take ages to conclude. Add to this, the fact that these courts will not be in a hurry to decide a charge of rigging against Musharraf's electoral machinery and there you have it: a sure shot delivery of justice in a decade or so. Going to the election tribunals not being an option, would these parties be able to launch agitation? Today, even though their credibility with the people is low, they are being urged -- by lawyers, by growing number of students, by journalists, and by what exists of civil society -- to boycott and start a movement which these groups will lend support to. These parties are being told that now is the time for a movement and that the protests started by these groups will soon dwindle if left on their own. While these groups are still sustaining their protests, no party has joined them on a single occasion save for a photo session at the Press Clubs. The possibility of launching a post-election agitation when these groups and a cynical populace would have become even more cynical and mistrusting of these parties because of their participation in the elections, is, very slim. One argument against boycott is that it will give the establishment a free hand to install their handpicked people in government. That is stating the obvious but it is hardly an argument. The point of boycott is not just to boycott and then sit at home waiting for someone to take notice, sympathise and come to rescue. The point of boycott is, firstly, to take away the election's legitimacy and secondly, to mobilize a movement to force the establishment into conceding that the only elections acceptable are those that are held under the dispensation that existed on November 2. This is not the Zia era of 1985. Musharraf's power today is considerably less than what Zia's was then. A few thousand lawyers thinned out over the whole of Pakistan were able to sustain a movement for over four months that eventually gave the judiciary the confidence to throw out Musharraf's reference against the Chief Justice at a time when he still ruled strong. But it appears that despite the fact that Musharraf is much weaker today and despite the ready made support that lawyers and civil society are willing to lend them, the political parties are not confident and afraid to even attempt to launch a movement. Perhaps they are only worthy of the kind of elections they are about to get. The political parties are being urged to adopt a politics of "reconciliation" by those who would like the coming farcical elections to be perceived as "legitimate". It is not entirely clear as to what this rhetoric means other than an invitation to do deals and become part of an unstable future governmental set up acceptable to the establishment. It is even more unclear as to how one reconciles with a whole scale massacre of the judiciary, arbitrary mass arrests and detentions, a media gag denying freedom of expression and information, or a dictator's tampering with the constitution. Politics that entails reconciling with all of this is just what the political parties need to adopt if they wish to lose even the last iota of the little respect and credibility they may still have in the eyes of the people. The writer is an advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan currently wondering whether he will continue to practice or not.