Monthly Archives: December, 2009

PAUSE, SIRS, AND PONDER

by I.A. Rehman

The fact that in its response to the Supreme Court judgment of Dec 16 the nation is divided cannot be denied, and prudence demands that the causes of this division should not be brushed aside without careful scrutiny.

A large section of society believes that Pakistan has become a corruption-free entity and a judicially controlled democracy while a none-too-small section feels deeply hurt. Much can be said for and against both sides.

The hailers are largely guided by their desire to wipe off the shame of becoming one of the most corrupt states in the world. They appear full of zeal for righteousness. However, they will do their cause enormous harm if they fall for the universally repudiated view that the ends always justify the means. The people of Pakistan paid a heavy price for taking this route when they welcomed the usurpation of power by Ayub Khan, Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf.

The wailers are largely moved by the apparent setback to their group. They think the law has been used for a political purpose. They have strong memories of the Tamizuddin and Nusrat Bhutto cases and the judgment against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. They could be wrong. However, they will do themselves enormous harm if they appear to be defending corrupt persons or practices.

(more…)

South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) organised a discussion on the Best Practices in the South Asian Region for Free and Fair Elections on 17th December 2009 at the Kobbakkaduwa Centre, Sri Lanka. Guests from all spheres of the community comprising of members from international, regional and local nongovernmental organizations in a variety of fields, media personnel, and undergraduates participated at this event. The panel consisted of Mr. J C Weliamuna from Transparency International Sri Lanka, Mr. Rohana Hettiarachchi from PAFFREL and Dr. Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu from Centre for Policy Alternatives, Sri Lanka.

Ms. Sharmin Murshid from Bangladesh spoke about the recently concluded Bangladesh election and main differences  from the elections held in the past. Her presentation further focused on the measures taken by the relevant authorities to bring about this change and the contribution by the civil society.

An overview of the Best Election Practices in the South Asian Region was given by Mr. Asanga Welikala after which Mr. J C Weliamuna focused on the relevance to Sri Lanka’s current context, the issues and shortcomings of the current Sri Lankan electoral system and how Sri Lanka can learn from its South Asian counterparts. Finally a brainstorming session on the Role of Civil Society in the short and long term was held which was moderated by Mr. K S Ratnavel.

Click here to download the video of this event which was broadcasted over Young Asia Television.

7

SAHR Members

Ms. Sharmin Murshid speaking via skype

Ms. Sharmin Murshid speaking via skype

Mr. Asanga Welikala speaking

Mr. Asanga Welikala speaking

Mr. J.C. Weliamuna

Mr. J.C. Weliamuna

ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE JUDGMENT

by Asma Jahangir

The NRO case, Dr Mubashar Hasan and others versus the federation, has once again stirred a hornet’s nest.

There is thunderous applause for bringing the accused plunderers and criminals to justice and widespread speculation on the resignation of the president. Very little analysis is being done on the overall effect of the judgment itself.

While, the NRO can never be defended even on the plea of keeping the system intact, the Supreme Court judgment has wider political implications. It may not, in the long run, uproot corruption from Pakistan but will make the apex court highly controversial. (more…)

ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE JUDGMENT

The NRO case, Dr Mubashar Hasan and others versus the federation, has
once again stirred a hornet’s nest.
There is thunderous applause for bringing the accused plunderers and
criminals to justice and widespread speculation on the resignation of
the president. Very little analysis is being done on the overall
effect of the judgment itself.
While, the NRO can never be defended even on the plea of keeping the
system intact, the Supreme Court judgment has wider political
implications. It may not, in the long run, uproot corruption from
Pakistan but will make the apex court highly controversial.
Witch-hunts, rather than the impartial administration of justice,
will keep the public amused. The norms of justice will be judged by
the level of humiliation meted out to the wrongdoers, rather than
strengthening institutions capable of protecting the rights of the
people.
There is no doubt that impunity for corruption and violence under the
cover of politics and religion has demoralised the people, fragmented
society and taken several lives. It needs to be addressed but through
consistency, without applying different standards, and by
scrupulously respecting the dichotomy of powers within statecraft. In
this respect the fine lines of the judgment do not bode well.
The lawyers’ movement and indeed the judiciary itself has often
lamented that the theory of separation of powers between the
judiciary, the legislature and the executive has not been respected.
The NRO judgment has disturbed the equilibrium by creating an
imbalance in favour of the judiciary.
The judgment has also sanctified the constitutional provisions of a
dictator that placed a sword over the heads of the parliamentarians.
Moreover, it has used the principle of ‘closed and past transactions’
selectively.
It is not easy to comprehend the logic of the Supreme Court that in a
previous judgment it went beyond its jurisdiction to grant life to
ordinances — including the NRO — protected by Musharraf’s emergency
to give an opportunity to parliament to enact them into law.
If the NRO was violative of fundamental rights and illegal ab initio,
then whether the parliament enacted it or not it would have
eventually been struck down. By affording parliament an opportunity
to own up to the NRO appears to be a jeering gesture unbecoming of
judicial propriety.
The NRO judgment has struck down the law also for being violative of
Article 62(f), which requires a member of parliament to be,
‘Sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen’.
Hence, the bench will now judge the moral standing of
parliamentarians on these stringent standards set by the notorious
Zia regime. This article of the constitution has always been
considered undemocratic and a tool to keep members of parliament
insecure.
If parliamentarians, who also go through the rigorous test of
contesting elections in the public domain, are to be subjected to
such exacting moral standards then the scrutiny of judges should be
higher still.
After all, judges are selected purely on the value of their integrity
and skills. Judges who erred in the past seek understanding on the
plea that they subsequently suffered and have made amends. Should
others also not be given the same opportunity to turn over a new
leaf? How will sagacity and non-profligate behaviour be judged?
Apart from Dr Mubashar Hasan, not even the petitioners of the NRO
case are likely to pass the strenuous test laid down in Article 62 of
the constitution. This could well beg the question whether it is wise
for those in glass houses to be pelting stones.The judgment goes much
further. It has assumed a monitoring rather than a supervisory role
over NAB cases. In India, the supreme court directly interfered in
the Gujarat massacre but it did not make monitoring cells within the
superior courts.
Is it the function of the superior courts to sanctify the infamous
NAB ordinance, the mechanism itself and to restructure it with people
of their liking? It is true that the public has greater trust in the
judiciary than in any other institution of the state, but that
neither justifies encroachment on the powers of the executive or
legislature nor does it assist in keeping an impartial image of the
judiciary.
The long-term effects of the judgment could also be counter-
productive; perpetrators are often viewed as victims if justice is
not applied in an even-handed manner and if administered in undue
haste with overwhelming zeal. It is therefore best to let the various
intuitions of state take up their respective responsibilities because
eventually it is the people who are the final arbiters of everyone’s
performance.
The writer is chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.
The NRO case, Dr Mubashar Hasan and others versus the federation, has
once again stirred a hornet’s nest.
There is thunderous applause for bringing the accused plunderers and
criminals to justice and widespread speculation on the resignation of
the president. Very little analysis is being done on the overall
effect of the judgment itself.

Dalit Leader’s Fast-Unto-Death for Private Sector Reservations

The Dalit Freedom Network (DFN) and its India partner, the All India Christian Council (aicc), expressed concern over the health of Dr. Udit Raj, National Chairman, All India Confederation of SC/ST Organisations who entered his fourth day of a hunger strike. DFN and aicc leaders urged the Central government to take action and engage the Dalit leader on his demands for reservations in the private sector.

Dr. Raj started a fast-unto-death on Tuesday, December 15, 2009. He will only drink water until either the government meets his request or he dies. (more…)

Hand Over Murder Suspect to Police: Human Rights Watch

The government of Nepal should ensure that the Nepal Army immediately hands over an army major implicated in the murder of a 15-year-old girl in 2004 to police custody, so civilian criminal proceedings against him can proceed, Human Rights Watch said today. Donors supporting justice and the peace process in Nepal should insist that the government of Nepal act promptly in this case, Human Rights Watch said.

Major Niranjan Basnet, who had been serving as a peacekeeper in Chad, was returned to Nepal on December 13, 2009, after the UN discovered that he had been charged in 2007 with the illegal detention, killing, and torture of the girl, Maina Sunuwar. He has never appeared before a civilian court to face these charges, and was allowed to join the peacekeeping mission by Nepal’s government in September despite the pending charges. Upon his return, the army, which has previously defied court orders and shielded Major Basnet from prosecution, placed him in military custody.

For More: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/12/14/nepal-hand-over-murder-suspect-police

Pakistanis Mark Rights Day as Abuses Reach Peak

The International Human Rights Day of 2009 falls amidst the cruel realities being faced by Pakistanis.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) is perturbed at the suffering of people in Pakistan owing to the brutality unleashed by militants as well as the destruction caused by internal conflicts in many parts of the country.

A series of bomb attacks carried out by militants killing thousands of civilians as well as members of the security forces has been devastating. Children and women have been most vulnerable to the accesses of militants. Schools have not been spared and women living in the conflict zones are totally immobilised. Pakistan is facing one of its worst challenges to protect the rights of its citizens. (more…)

High Court Order on Extrajudicial Killings in Bangladesh

On 14 December,2009 the High Court of Bangladesh expressed grave concern over persistence of extrajudicial killings as 11 people were killed in custody since issuance of a suo motu rule upon the government on November 17 for an explanation on the matter.

Ain o Salish Kendra  and Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust had submitted public interest petitions  to the High Court’s asking why the death of two brothers in Madaripur due to crossfire with RAB should  not be termed as extrajudicial killing.

Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) submitted separate statements to the court saying over 1,000 people have been killed in custody in “so-called” crossfire, encounter or gunfight in violation of human rights since formation of Rab in 2004.   BLAST placed records of Odhikar, another rights organisation, saying the number of victims systematically rose from 64 in 2004 to 111 in 2005 and 192 in 2006. However, the number of such victims fell to 94 in 2007, 68 in 2008 and 39 till November 2009.

The human rights organizations  have regretted the recent statement by the Home Minister that no “crossfire” has taken place during this government’s tenure. The suo motu rule of the High Court proves that extrajudicial killings have persisted in Bangladesh.

Source: statement from ASK, The Daily Star

For More on Human Rights in Pakistan

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan – www.hrcp-web.org

South Asia Partnership, Pakistan - www.sappk.org

For More on Human Rights in India

Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative – http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org

People’s Union for Civil Liberties – www.pucl.org

Programmes

BLOG

Subscribe to SAHR

Loading...Loading...