HUMAN RIGHTS FEATURES

(Voice of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Network)

(A joint initiative of SAHRDC and HRDC)

B-6/6 Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi 110 029, India

Tel: +91-11-619 2717, 619 2706, 619 1120; Fax: 619 1120

E-mail: hrdc_online@hotmail.com

Home Page: http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/

The Jack Boot in Pakistan Violations of civil and political rights since the army take-over

On 14 October 1999, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of Army Staff General Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. He proclaimed that the country's constitution would be held in abeyance, that the National Assembly, the Provincial Assemblies and the Senate would stand suspended, that the Prime Minister, the Federal Ministers, and the Provincial Governors and Ministers, among others, would cease to hold office, and that Gen. Musharraf would serve as the country's new chief executive. Gen. Musharraf promised a global television audience that he would govern in the interests of the Pakistani people.

Many welcomed the general's actions. The regime of deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had spent much of its two-and-a-half-year life weakening the country's civil society. The ousted government had threatened the freedom of the press by limiting the supply of newsprint to some newspapers and by detaining liberal journalists. The former prime minister and his cronies had undercut freedom of association by bullying local NGOs. And the former regime had reduced the amount of free political expression by passing a constitution amendment that prevented members of the National Assembly from speaking against their political parties.

Although Gen. Musharraf promised relief from the excesses of the Sharif regime, his administration has not delivered on the general's pledges to protect the basic human rights and dignity of the Pakistani people. There is concern that many who live in Pakistan continue to suffer from violations of the civil and political rights from governmental officials and their fellow citizens.

The military government has promulgated and implemented a system of national accountability that has not respected the rights of those persons under investigation. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and numerous other international human rights treaties describe the basic protections that a state must afford to suspects. Those persons have rights to information, to legal counsel before trial, to have access to the outside world, to be brought promptly before a judge or other judicial official, to challenge the lawfulness of the detention, to a trial within a reasonable time or to release from detention, and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, non-discrimination principles require governments to pursue cases against all persons who may have violated the law, regardless of their status.

The National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 and its amendments permit violations of these basic rights. Until the modification of the ordinance more than three months after it was promulgated, the bureau could detain alleged perpetrators for 90 days, and the detainees had no right to be produced before a court. No international body has found a detention period of this length and under these terms to be acceptable. Furthermore, the accountability law requires accused persons to prove the legality of every single action that they took while in office; in effect, charged persons are presumed to be guilty until they can prove their innocence.

The National Accountability Bureau has violated the rights of those under investigation in practice. Credible reports indicate that the bureau has not given some accused persons opportunities to consult with their lawyers, their family members, and associates. Without these contacts, those under investigation are unable to defend themselves and to seek assistance. Furthermore, almost all of the persons under investigation are members or supporters of the previous political regimes. The chairman of the accountability bureau has said that it is "not within his mandate" to pursue investigations against members of the armed forces or the judiciary, thereby publicly acknowledging the selective nature of the accountability process.

Those who have defrauded the government of Pakistan should be punished for their actions. However, the military regime must adhere to the international standards for fair investigations and trials in its pursuit of the corrupt.

The military government has interfered with the independence of Pakistan's judiciary. The Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, endorsed by United Nations General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985, states that "it is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary," that "the judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially . . . without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason," and that "the judiciary shall have jurisdiction over all issues of a judicial nature and shall have exclusive authority to decide whether an issue submitted for its decision is within its competence as defined by law." Furthermore, "[j]udges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists," and "[j]udges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behavior that renders them unfit to discharge their duties."

Pakistan's chief executive violated these principles when he issued the Oath of Office (Judges') Order, 2000 early in the morning of 26 January 2000. The order stated that a "person holding office immediately before the commencement of this order as a judge of superior court shall not continue to hold that office if he is not given, or does not make, Oath in the form set out in the schedule," and that "[a] person . . . who has made oath as required by these clauses shall be bound by the provisions of this order, the proclamation of emergency of the fourteenth day of October 1999, and the provisional constitution order No 1 of 1999 as amended and, notwithstanding any judgment of any court, shall not call in question or permit to be called in question the validity of any of the provisions thereof." Through this order, Gen. Musharraf removed those sitting judges who refused to swear allegiance to the new government, and prevented those judges who took the oath from independently ruling on the legality of the regime. The timing of the proclamation betrays the insidious intent behind the act: the order was issued the day before the Nawas Sharif trial was set to resume in Karachi, and less than one week before the Supreme Court was set to hear legal challenges to Gen. Musharraf's emergency proclamation and his provisional constitutional orders.

The military regime has also undermined the independence of the judiciary on at least two other occasions. The Pakistani Supreme Court has stated that the senior most judge of any court has a "legitimate expectation" to become the chief judge of that court. However, the military regime did not appoint the senior most judge of the Lahore High Court as the new chief judge of that court after the previous chief judge resigned in response to the Oath of Office Order. Members of the Lahore High Court Bar Association have stated that the new regime did not believe that the court's senior most judge would follow the direction of the military government. In another instance, the judge presiding over Nawaz Sharif trial referred the proceedings to another court. The judge said that he was unable to perform his duties with plain-clothes security personnel attending the proceedings. These two incidents indicate that the military government is inappropriately involving itself in the internal operations of the courts, and that some of its actions are "improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect."

Recent statements from the new chief justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan that the judiciary remains an independent branch of government, and that the Supreme Court can entertain all arguments and issues brought before it are heartening. However, the current Pakistani government is yet to demonstrate that it is sworn to uphold the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary so that the Pakistani judiciary may function freely and effectively.

-Human Rights Features

Top / About SAHRDC / Action Alerts / Online Resource Centre / Publications / Home  

All contents copyright © SAHRDC,  B-6/6, Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi - 110029, India