27.10.2013 Pride and justice
A reappraisal of the past five years and the Lawyers’ Movement as the
day of Chief Justice of Pakistan’s retirement is fast approaching
By Huzaima Bukhari
&
Dr. Ikramul Haq
“Vanity and pride are different things, though the words are often used synonymously. A person may be proud without being vain. Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves, vanity to what we would have others think of us”
— Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice
As the day of retirement of Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) is approaching fast, some serious controversies are looming large — especially in the wake of a complaint filed before Supreme Judicial Council by Lahore High Court Bar Association. It reflects sadly on his journey from an admirable icon to a controversial figure among the politically divided legal fraternity but the more serious concern is the possibility of tarnishing the image of higher judiciary in Pakistan in the eye of the common Pakistani who is totally disillusioned about rule of law and dispensation of justice in the country.
At this critical juncture, it is time for a reappraisal of the past five years. Undoubtedly, the year 2007 will ever remain a dark patch in the judicial history of Pakistan. On March 9, 2007, Pervez Musharraf summoned the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudhry, to the Army House and asked him to submit his resignation in the presence of five army generals that also included heads of intelligence services.
Refusal to abide by the orders of a President whose rise to power was through no legal means, led to a series of vindictive actions against the CJP, who was not only suspended from office but was also kept under house arrest and was mistreated by inferior pawns of the administration. Such appalling treatment of a public figure representing the highest echelon of judiciary raised a severe furore that mobilised the masses to come out in the open crying out for his restoration and rising like a formidable wall in defence of prestige of Judiciary, an indispensable arm of the government. The forerunner of these protests was the Lawyers’ Movement followed closely and enthusiastically by members of the civil society as well as all leading political parties.
It was perhaps the first time since 1947 that the nation stood up in complete solidarity against a very despicable act committed by none other than a man in uniform and so-called guardian of the country’s honour. After all, what was the most motivating factor that led to such an uprising?
Was it the persona of the incumbent, Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry or the sanctity of the Chief Justice’s office that compelled the legal fraternity, men, women and children belonging to all social classes to come out onto the roads in massive protests all over the country in general and more particularly in the Punjab. Even those who did not actively participate sat glued to their television sets as media covered moment to moment news about the countrywide agitations along with topical talk shows. People were heard saying that they were no longer interested in daily soaps or other entertainment programmes but were keen on learning about developments on the restoration of judiciary.
The media also had a significant role in creating hype and gauging the popularity of the subject — every news channel was vying with each other in providing breaking news. Many members of the legal fraternity, who were even not very fond of Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, laid aside their personal likes and dislikes only to render their complete support for the restitution of the office of CJP.
In Pakistan’s peculiar milieu, where people, despite “democracy”, are condemned to suffer at the hands of politicians as Legislature, powerful military-civil complex as Executive, the only source of hope remains the Judiciary that gives them a sense of security and if that is threatened then obviously their last resort would be by way of protest to safeguard their only sanctuary. This is the reason why movements for deposed prime ministers could not restore them whereas the Chief Justice regained his lost stature within two years as on March 22, 2009. What a triumphant victory that was for the people of Pakistan and the Judiciary!
The people’s power was overwhelming. It was all due to masses of Pakistan that the periods from March 9, 2007 to July 20, 2007, from November 3, 2007 to March 16, 2009 and from March 9, 2009 to July 31, 2009 became a milestone for blocking any future military takeover. The second restoration of the CJP on March 22, 2009 was not a triumph of an individual but a victory of democratic forces. It paved way for revival of democracy and independence of judiciary. The decision of July 31, 2009 consolidated it when a categorical finding was given against unconstitutional acts of Musharraf and action was taken against all judges who took oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) of November 3, 2007.
As long as support for Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was pouring in from within and outside Pakistan for his defiance against the mighty man in khaki it was commendable, but when his unwise proponents started attributing victory to his persona, the scenario turned into culture of sycophancy. It was as if, had the Chief Justice been someone else, the movement would not have mustered the same magnitude. Such flattery and misleading praises are sufficient to fan anyone’s ego, turning pride into vanity. Even the expectation of people was being transformed into believing that now the independent judiciary would stand up for them with the same boldness as it did for its own prestige. To what extent has this expectation been fulfilled can be adjudged by the people from the subsequent decisions.
On reminiscing the past, one tends to think what would have been the position, had the Chief Justice tendered his resignation the day he was fully restored? This suggestion was fiercely countered by one of the leading advocates of this country and right hand of the struggling Chief Justice and who has now visibly distanced himself from him. One thing is definite that Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry would have become a much acclaimed national hero had he opted to retire voluntarily after restitution. It could have avoided many controversies — both political and personal, especially in the wake of his son, Arsalan’s, alleged involvement in a high profile case and the way it was handled souring the aspirations of the people of Pakistan.
Much has been written about personal controversies and desire to be in the corridors of power but the more important aspect has been ignored by all, i.e. rise and fall of State institutions which are intrinsically linked with personalities. The oft-repeated notion that institutions must rise above individuals is more a cliché than reality. History shows that institutions rise because of good individuals and not otherwise. One cannot divorce working of any institution from the quality of human fabric. The best of the institutions built over years are destroyed by even a single individual who is either incompetent or becomes arbitrary in discharging his duties.
People will never respect an institution if its custodians fail to uphold its propriety and sanctity. Institutions rise and fall with their custodians as leaders and nations rise and fall together.
The writers are Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS)