EDITORIAL: A verbal altercation has started between the government and legal fraternity over the proposed sweeping reforms to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Qanoon-i-Shahadat (law of evidence) Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and some other laws. In a statement issued on Thursday, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Ahsan Bhoon took a swipe at Minister for Law and Justice Farogh Naseem, saying he had once again shown his lack of knowledge of law and “effectively demonstrated his inability, as well as the [lack] of capacity in his team”.
He called for broad-based consultations to make the reforms, “more efficient, resourceful, and cost-effective”. “Vehemently” rejecting those comments, the minister said a complete draft of the criminal law reforms was shared with SCBA, Pakistan Bar Council, all provincial bar councils and all high court bar associations, inviting them to give their inputs. And that to date, none of these entities had given any input. It was an elementary principle of law, he averred, that silence on a matter implies that they have nothing to add and are happy with the document.
Both sides have fair points. As important stakeholders’ representative bodies of the legal fraternity should be able to have their say in legal reforms; and the government appears to be right in assuming that ‘silence’ means concurrence. As for the need for reforms it is clear from the fact that most of these laws are archaic being a legacy of colonial era, some go as far back as 1894.
There is a long list of the proposed amendments. Some of the non-controversial ones include establishment of an independent prosecution service, forensic laboratories as well as updating of prison rules, mandatory dispensation of budget to police stations so they can meet investigation expense, police stations to be headed by sub inspectors with bachelor’s degrees, and Rs 1 million fine for frivolous complaints.
But also included is plea bargain for ‘minor’ crimes, not applicable — for obvious reasons — to offences carrying death, life, or a sentence above seven years, and crimes related to women, children and socio-economic issues.
The stated objective is to reduce the judicial backlog, but it could also encourage those involved in ‘minor’ offences to pay some money and go back to committing more crimes. A major bone of contention, however, turns out to be the emphasis on speedy justice.
The trial courts are to have nine months’ time limit for the completion of criminal cases, and in the event of non-compliance they would submit reasons for the same before the relevant high court. Some opposition leaders have taken issue with this provision, saying it is designed to get at political rivals of the PTI leader.
Irrespective of their objections, considering that all cases in this country have a habit of dragging on for years, if not decades, the delivery of justice ought to be expedited. As the old legal maxim goes, justice delayed is justice denied. Needless to say, in this the judicial process must meet all requirements of natural justice.
The proposed reforms are yet to be approved by Parliament. Before that government should engage in proper consultations with the other stakeholders to fine-tune the draft law. They may not agree on everything.
In fact, according to the Law Minister, the legal community has its own interest in prolonging the judicial proceedings, pointing out that when the government changed the procedure for issuance of succession certificates from courts which took a long time, to a quick facilitation by Nadra, lawyers’ bodies had opposed it for losing easy clientele. Both sides need to avoid mutual recriminations and focus on bringing up to date our antiquated criminal justice system in consonance with the best practices.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022
Comments
Comments are closed.