Targeting perjury by Ikram Sehgal.

[Nek Muhammad]

The ongoing controversy about fake credentials being used to enter parliament on false pretences, and thus conceivably preside over the destiny of the nation, brings into focus a greater affliction in the body politic of Pakistan, rampant perjury. In my article “Perjury” written as far back as Feb 8, 2000, I noted, “A few weeks ago I sat and watched in increasing frustration and disgust as two executives of a semi-government corporation lied through their teeth while giving evidence under oath. Almost every sentence of their affidavits was a lie, answers to every question was a blatant untruth. Even though this was before one of the best judges ever produced by the judiciary in Pakistan, the judiciary seems to have become helpless to prevent perjury.

The judiciary acts only on the evidence on record, giving judgment on the basis of the statute books without relevance to the integrity of the evidence being presented before them”. Being still sub judice ten years later (successfully filibustered by well-paid lawyers of the opposite party it could go on for many decades more), one cannot ethically take names.

As opposed to the suited and booted liars in the aforementioned case, professional touts can be found outside many subordinate courts in Pakistan, ready to render “evidence” under oath for a price. In many criminal cases, the verdict is subject to either influence or disbursements by the highest bidder. While not always, perjury is taking place in enough of the cases for the situation to be considered catastrophic for the rule of law. To put it bluntly, justice can be manipulated to suit those who have a reason to manipulate it, and have the means, either money or influence, to do so. This subversion of the rule of law has become endemic in many countries in varying degrees, in Pakistan even more so. Clearly, drastic corrective action is a crying need of the time.

Accountability of any kind is almost impossible in a country where almost all statements or cross-examinations under oath are badly tainted. Our failure to deal with systemic perjury is why corruption has flourished. In the article “Eliminating perjury” on December 15, 2005, I wrote, “Justice is dependant upon the evidence brought before those dispensing justice. If the evidence is manipulated in any manner or a witness deliberately makes material false or misleading statement the verdict given will be flawed. It stands to reason that for justice to be done, it is imperative to ensure the credibility of evidence. In the first world, serious notice is taken of perjury, and many are convicted and punished for it. One really wonders as to the record of such convictions in third world countries — presumably it would be abysmally low”. Falsification of documents, statements etc. is done for personal advantage to derive benefit more than what is their due. How many people have we sent to jail for such criminal conduct?

Attacks by some senior (and supposedly responsible) functionaries of the government on the superior judiciary seem deliberately motivated to destroy both the judiciary’s credibility and capability to uphold the rule of law. The fabric binding society is the belief that those that are supposed to uphold the law will do so, if one has reason to fear these very people of violating the laws of the land then the very basis of civilisation fails.

A movement emanating from a small village called Nagalbari in the 60s in India spread throughout the East and South East as the “Naxalite” movement. Five decades later Naxalites have become a potent force to contend with in many Indian states, killing criminals and the corrupt in the judiciary and law enforcement alike, not to mention corrupt bureaucrats, crooked businessmen, anybody amassing inordinate wealth. Even though the Indians are generally in self-denial about Maoists holding sway across a broad swath of India, even collecting revenues in as many as 70 districts, the issue has assumed such crisis proportions that the Indian Army is being increasingly employed to go after hardcore terrorists. In Pakistan the militants used the facade of religion in Swat, what they really exploited was rampant injustice and frustrations thereof. If the whole system is taken to be corrupt and the justice meted out to be unjust and unfair, frustration forces those seeking justice to take law into their own hands. Loss of faith in the judicial system can become a very potent breeding ground for vigilantes. Social upheaval turning violent can spill over into the Pakistani heartland.

As officers of the court, both under law and professional ethics, lawyers are not supposed to be party to fabrication of, and tampering with, the evidence. They are duty-bound to bring malfeasance of any kind to the attention of the court. Many lawyers will not take a case if they find evidence of malfeasance, how many will report wrongdoing that comes to their knowledge? Many fall back on the sacred nature of the lawyer-client relationship that all facts disclosed are privileged communication that cannot be disclosed to a third party (or parties) if detrimental to the interests of the client. When a court decides in favour of one side, unless it is for technical reasons, it has effectively confirmed that the other side’s case submitted false evidence. Unfortunately highly paid lawyers can distort evidence or have it set aside on technical grounds, knowing evidence to be false and still persevering with it not a clear violation of the oath to present the truth and nothing but the truth?

Those committing perjury, and this includes distorting of evidence, must be punished by stiff imprisonments and heavy fines according to the nature of the offence. In criminal trials, the punishment could be exactly what the accused would have got if the evidence had been held to be correct. If based on the statements of the witnesses committing perjury the accused would go to the gallows, shouldn’t those giving false evidence face the gallows themselves? No given formula can be used. The judge (or judges) must decide each case of perjury on merit and come down with a heavy hand against perjurers as well as their manipulators and abettors.

Except for the president, who for some odd reason is the only holder of public office exempted from declaration of assets, our parliamentarians have furnished these under oath. If one were to believe the stated record, most of them are living below the poverty line. Why doesn’t the Election Commission (EC) have Class One auditors determine their actual wealth and compare it against filed income tax statements and declaration of assets information? Other than stiff jail sentences, perjurers should be forever disqualified from holding public office. This is a unique opportunity for the EC, and if not than the superior judiciary, to make an example that no one is above the law and that the rule of law will prevail, that perjury will not be tolerated.

The great majority of elected representatives are honourable people with genuine credentials, why should they object if those of their colleagues committing perjury get exemplary punishment?