The week ending January 24 was historic, not only because the Supreme Court (SC) announced its detailed judgement in the petitions, challenging the validity of the NRO, but also because some legal 'experts' expressed their views on the 'partisan' and 'erroneous' nature of the verdict, and went to shocking lengths in faulting the verdict which, in effect, reflected their own partisan views on the judicial process and system as a whole.
On January 19, in a TV talk show, Barrister Naeem Bukhari was asked whether the SC verdict invalidates the candidacy of the sitting President of Pakistan for contesting the election that made him the President. Bukhari expressed his shock at the prospect of just 17 individuals (a reference to the 17 honourable judges of the SC, who delivered the verdict in question) to decide the fate of an individual elected by the masses.
Later, Ali Ahmad Kurd also joined the discussion and reluctantly agreed with Bukari's view on this subject. The implication reflected in these views is that the SC (a handful if individuals) is not competent to decide on this issue; only a verdict by over 50 percent of the eligible voters can do so. This is an amazing approach to dispensing justice - supremacy of the majority even in interpreting the law. Shocking, isn't it?
Coming from Bukhari, this amazing view won't surprise those who read the open letter he addressed to Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Choudhury on February 16, 2007. God alone knows whether he expressed 'his' views or of 'some buddy' else because, soon thereafter, began the historic and shameful tussle between the Presidency and the SC and sacking of the SC judges by the then President and CoAS General Pervaiz Musharraf.
In another TV talk show later, Asma Jehangir, another respected lawyer and current Chairperson of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, expressed the view that Pakistan's judiciary has been politicised, and that 'activism' and 'adventurism' are not synonymous concepts (impliedly in the context of judicial actions). This is not the first time she expressed her disappointment with the current conduct of the superior judiciary.
According to her, no one can bring black money back from the Swiss banks. It is now for you to decide whether she was implying, thereby the sheer muscle power of the Swiss banks or the incapacity of the government of Pakistan. More likely, she was referring to the incapacity of the Pakistan's government because, according to her, even after spending billions of rupees, the government couldn't bring the money back.
Firstly, it is incorrect that money can't be brought back from the Swiss banks; as early as 1980, the bank that I was then serving and a British bank succeeded in doing so (and within six months) with the help of Interpol and a Swiss bank. The case involved a Sri Lankan rice exporter (who presented fake but valid looking documents and claimed reimbursement for the shipment), a shipping line, and its local agent in Muscat.
Later, the black wealth of corrupt individuals and the heads of state and government (some hinted at in the detailed the SC judgement) too was retrieved from the Swiss banks in spite of the Swiss law on secrecy. Besides, after the recent discovery and criminalisation of tax-evading, American investors, dealing with the US operations of the Union Bank of Switzerland, the myth about the Swiss laws and the Swiss banks' muscle power has been exposed.
As for the waste of billions of rupees by the government of Pakistan in its efforts to retrieve the black wealth lying in the Swiss banks (which was advanced by her as the rationale for not pursuing the ends of justice), firstly, it is highly defective logic coming from a reputed lawyer and, secondly, it is not the size of lawyers' fees and other expenses that ensure the success of such efforts; it requires much more than that.
What it requires is commitment, thorough investigative effort, assembly of all requisite evidence, a purpose-oriented interaction with Interpol, clear knowledge of the Swiss banking laws and the recent changes therein, citing of the instances of withdrawal of black wealth of the heads of government and state, and faultless case presentation. This wasn't always the case in earlier efforts, which was why they achieved partial success.
Jehangir can't deny the fact that, despite these weaknesses (often suspect), the efforts did sometimes succeed, but near winnable cases were withdrawn from the Swiss courts to achieve purely political ends. Besides, should crimes be forgiven if the cost of dispensing justice is high? Is this the profile of justice that she considers appropriate, more so, as the current Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan?
Coming back to the logic about whether the justice should be dispensed with by majority of the electorate or by judges competent to do so, as advanced by Bukhari and Kurd, such demands by lawyers shake the confidence of every sane human being. While expressing their view, these lawyers obviously didn't consider the anarchic consequences of applying the suicidal principle of dispensing justice that they are propagating.
But why blame them; according to press reports, two former judges of the superior judiciary - former Justice Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim and former Justice Tariq Mahmood - are strongly of the view that even if the government fails (by visibly stopping the law enforcement agencies) in implementing the SC verdict in its entirety, the SC must not seek intervention by the defence forces to ensure the implementation of its verdict.
Do these 'Gentlemen' have the 'clout' to convince the present government to implement the SC verdict, or do they want the masses to come on the streets to force the government to do so? Since we haven't seen the exercise of their implied 'clout' over the government, they are obviously prodding the masses to launch another prolonged economy-damaging protest like the one witnessed until the restoration of the judiciary.
All these honourable lawyers are self-acclaimed 'defenders' of both democracy and the rule of law. It is a tragedy, though that what all these 'well-meaning' gentlemen are recommending are strategies that can only escalate chaos - the end that has always and will always serve the purposes of those who want Pakistan to disappear from the face of the earth without their openly having to participate in this process.
As a nation, we collectively lack rationality and concern for the future. All the 'wise' men and women 'striving' to save democracy at 'all costs' have just one explanation about democracy's repeated failure in Pakistan: 'military interventions.' Did any of them ever lecture our politicians on the requirements for being good politicians: a clear sense of history, macroeconomics, and ensuring transparency in the affairs of the state?