An open letter to Naeem Bukhari

Last night I had the pleasure of watching the interview you gave on the 'Hum TV' channel. I have to admit that you displayed your usual relaxed style even though (and you will agree with me), a lot has happened since February 16, when you addressed your 'public' letter to the then functional and now suspended Chief Justice of Pakistan. Your composure was justified because 'your' (was it really?) letter provided the state the cause it needed to disable the Chief Justice of Pakistan. Yet, given the present circumstances, your composure was frighteningly remarkable because ordinary souls like me expected that a Gentleman lawyer like yourself would be a bit more concerned about what this imbroglio in-the-making could lead to. All indications are that it would prove disastrous for the government, and irreparably damaging for the judiciary and the country. Not much of your concern, is it?

Before watching your TV interview, around March 2, I also had the pleasure of reading a copy of your historic letter referred to above, which was e-mailed to me by the Editor of an English language daily. The reason why I decided to write to you is that I noticed some contradictions between what you wrote to the now-suspended Chief Justice of Pakistan and your disclosures during the interview. In the interview you admitted that the Chief Justice conveys the impression that he has thoroughly read the case papers before the hearing begins. However, the complaint you voiced was that he disposes of the cases too quickly. It is my understanding of the legal process that the judge arrives at a decision after he or she has thoroughly examined the complaint and the response thereto from the defendant. If the Chief Justice gives you the impression that he does so, why must you insist that he should not decide the cases at that point? Why must cases linger on? Surely, you know that our courts take long to decide cases and it results in delays in dispensation of justice. Surely you agree with the adage "justice delayed is justice denied". I therefore find it hard to understand what you imply when in your letter you say "We are not heard. We are not allowed to present our case. There is little scope for advocacy." What is of essence - advocacy or dispensing justice?

In your interview you stated that you wrote the letter because you were 'enraged' by the conduct of the now-suspended Chief Justice. In your letter you state "My Lord, the dignity of lawyers is consistently being violated by you. We are treated harshly, rudely, brusquely and nastily… The words used in the Bar Room for Court No. 1 are 'the slaughter house'. We are cowed down by aggression from the Bench, led by you. All we receive from you is arrogance, aggression and belligerence. You also throw away the file, while contemptuously announcing, "This is dismissed…. When Mr. Sharifuddin Pirzada appears, your Lordship's demeanor and appearance is not just sugar and honey. You are obsequitious to the point of meekness. So apart from violating our dignity, which the constitution commands to be inviolable, we suffer discrimination in your court."

In this background, I can appreciate the point you make. Without suggesting even for a moment that Mr. Sharifuddin Pirzada deserves to be treated with more respect than any other lawyer (which is the case according to you), you will agree with me that respect has to be earned; it cannot be demanded. During the TV interview, you said with a smile on your face that, technically, verdicts validating the overthrow of Kh. Nazimuddin's government, and those validating the Martial Laws of 1958, 1969, 1977 and 1999 were correct. I personally feel that downgrading principles and morality in favour of expediency (disguised in technicality), that some among the lawyer community espoused for decades lost the community the honour it otherwise could be proud of and demand respect based thereon. The country-wide lawyers' protest against the suspension of the Chief Justice only suggest that, contrary to your assertions, he is held in high esteem by practically the entire lawyer community.
According to your letter, the suspended Chief Justice had become overly fond of protocol despite your belief that "the Chief Justice would rise in the eyes of everybody if he walked from his residence to the court and hooters, police escort, flags is just fluff not the substance of an office…. I am mildly amused at your desire to be presented a guard of honour in Peshawar. I am titillated by the appropriation of Mercedes Benz car or is it cars, the use of the Government of the Punjab's plane to offer Fateha in Multan, to Sheikhupura for Fateha on a Government of the Punjab helicopter, to Hyderabad on a Government of the Sindh's plane for attending a High Court function, the huge amount spent in refurbishing the chamber and residence of the Chief Justice, the reservation for yourself of a wing in Supreme Court Judges guest house in Lahore, the permanent occupation by the Supreme Court of the official residence of the Chief Justice of Sindh, who per force lives in the basement of his father's house. As his class fellow in the Government College, Lahore, I can vouch that living in the basement will do him no harm."

Indeed, Pakistan would be better off if every holder of high office could follow your advice about walking to his or her office. But didn't you feel the need of giving this advice to the high and mighty that you meet, even occasionally, as you said in your interview? Why would you like the Chief Justice alone to set such an example? Surely you know that the urge for protocol is rooted not just in a fondness for it. Many of our high and mighty, feel insecure, for vastly differing reasons. Some fear their enemies and others the …... You are "perturbed that Justice (Retd.) Wajihuddin Ahmed should be constrained to advise" the Chief Justice "on television that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones at others". Let me assure you that I too am perturbed because I know the judge in question and I don't think that the context in which he said this was the one you would like us to believe.

And now I would like to point out the parts of your letter that give rise to suspicions about the fact that it was single-handedly your 'own' effort. Your assertion that you are "not raising the issue of verbal onslaughts and threats to Police Officers and other Civil Servants, who have the misfortune to be summoned, degraded and reminded that 'this is the Supreme Court" does not hide the concern you have about the bureaucracy and that is not an odd feeling. But you seem to overlook the fact (and I find it hard to believe that is the view of a Pakistani lawyer), the bureaucracy and police have had an awful record all through our 60-year history. Had the bulk of the bureaucracy and police force been honest and forthright, malpractice and crime would have been far lower. Admittedly, this profile of our bureaucracy and police force owes a great deal to the unfortunate terms on which they are employed but their top brass simply has no excuse for acting the way it does and it is only appropriate that sometimes it is harshly reminded of its failures and reprimanded for its indiscretions.

Indeed I would be appalled if the Chief Justice were to "announce decisions in Court, while in the written judgment [an] opposite conclusion is recorded." If that is the case, why didn't Mr. Khalid Anwar, Mr. Qadir Saeed, and Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim choose to complain about this serious aberration? As for the past political status of Mr. Khalid Anwar (that you cite as the reason for his being shown extra care), surely you would know that the fact that he is a former Minister of Law and Parliamentary Affairs does a great deal of harm to his otherwise clean image because in the exalted capacity of a Federal Minister he was able to obtain the passage of more than one controversial bill from the parliament.

You say that you are "pained at the wide publicity to cases taken up by My Lord in the Supreme Court under the banner of Fundamental Rights. The proceedings before the Supreme Court can conveniently and easily be referred to the District and Sessions Judges. I am further pained by the media coverage of the Supreme Court on the recovery of a female. In the bar room, this is referred to as a Media Circus." These, most certainly, are not your views. A Gentleman of your stature can't advocate downgrading the importance of fundamental rights and call the recovery of (I suppose an abducted and grossly humiliated woman), 'media circus'. Nor can I believe that a lawyer with your experience, who would know better that an ordinary soul like myself about the way our District Courts operate, recommend that such cases be passed on to these courts. This is the opinion of either the morally corrupt who pay only lip-service to protecting human rights, or who feel embarrassed by the rise in this crime category, especially the "missing persons" category.

You inform the Chief Justice what his "brother judges feel and say about" him and predict a rebellion against him saying "My Lord, before a rebellion arises among your brother judges (as in the case of Mr Justice Sajjad Ali Shah), before the Bar stands up collectively and before the entire matter is placed before the Supreme Judicial Council, there may be time to change and make amends." That is obviously not a conjecture; it is based on information that you received from some undisclosed sources. In your TV interview you mentioned that you sought the advice of only three lawyer friends before writing this letter and they all agreed that, you should do so. Is this not a surprise that out of these three, two are the most vocal opponents of the sad action taken against the Chief Justice of Pakistan? Or is it that besides these three lawyer friends (whom you contacted only to subsequently name them as your advisors), you were given advice by another quarter to write the letter that you wrote on February 16? Similarly, the information you have included in your letter about the alleged exploits of the Chief Justice's son is too detailed for compilation by a busy lawyer like you. Was it also provided by the same source?

A.B. Shahid,
Karachi.