Lawyers reject constitutional package

The legal fraternity of Southern Punjab rejected the proposed 18th Constitutional Amendment (constitutional package) being forwarded by Pakistan People's Party (PPP), and termed it an attempt to "delay the restoration of those judges who had declined to take oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO)."
"These amendments are devised to maintain the status quo," the High Court Bar Association Multan (HCBA) maintained. "Nearly, all the provisions of the Constitution relating to the judiciary have been defaced and mutilated in order to serve the purpose of ruling junta," the HCBA managing committee declared.
"This association has studied and considered in detail the proposed constitutional package titled the 18th Amendment prepared by the Ministry of Law and Justice, and is of the considered view that some of the proposed amendments are intended to legitimise all unconstitutional and mala fide acts of General Pervez Musharraf(Retd)."
The HCBA also criticised substitution in Article 6, on the grounds that the amendment has been proposed to protect the judges who have taken oath under the PCO and to convey an impression that no punishment is provided in the present Article 6 for the PCO judges.
The term "abater" has been used in the present Article 6 which is sufficient to cover all PCO judges, parliamentarians and other people for the offence of high treason. "Therefore, the proposal to amend Article 6 is cosmetic in nature and not necessary," the HCBA Multan President Mehmood Ashraf Khan said.
The association also expressed concern over the powers to appoint the attorney general and advocates general that were being conferred on the federal and provincial governments, respectively, and the discretion of the president and the governors to appoint these officers has been withdrawn thus making these offices a case of "political appointments."
The High Court Bar Multan strongly condemned the proposed amendments in Article 177 and the introduction of Article 177-A, saying that it violates the basic concept of the independence of the judiciary. The HCBA opposed the enhancement of retiring age of Supreme Court and high court judges, and said that this amounts to awarding a bonus to PCO judges and will not be accepted by the legal fraternity.
The HCBA also opposed introduction of Article 193-A, and termed it a violation of the concept of an independent judiciary. "The appointment of high court judges has been politicised by the inclusion of federal and provincial law ministers in the commission. Strangely, this commission will be headed by the federal law minister for the purpose of appointing chief justices of the provinces."
The association said that the formation of a joint parliamentary committee, and the involvement of the chief minister with the authority of sole discretion, supports the view of the legal fraternity that the process of elevation of the high court judges would be purely political.
It also condemned the substitution of Article 209 by the proposal of a Judicial Commission of Pakistan, which will comprise "non-politicised" retired judges. The HCBA said that the term has not been defined in the so-called 18th Amendment and the proposed Article 209 in the 18th Amendment is capable of being misused as a weapon of exploitation against judges who are independent and do not succumb to government pressure.
The HCBA was critical about the amendments in Article 184 of the Constitution that related to the suo motu jurisdiction of Supreme Court and termed the proposed amendment as a calculated attempt either to take away or curtail the power of the apex court, adding that the association totally rejects the proposed 18 Amendment as a mala fide attempt on the part of the present regime.