Supreme Court Bar conference: ‘Lawyers need to work more, strike less’

Judges call for greater oversight of agencies during times of conflict.

LAHORE: Lahore High Court Chief Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry has urged lawyers to find a way of protest other than court boycotts as their frequent strikes had increased the case backlog in an already strained system.

Speaking at the concluding session of a three-day conference – titled ‘Justice for all, impunity for none’ – organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on Sunday, Justice Chaudhry suggested that lawyers should also put in more hours.

He said in the past, a judge would take about a week to decide a murder case. Now, High Court judges were deciding four or five murder cases a day and their hours stretched beyond the normal working day. He said lawyers discouraged these late sittings and often refused to appear after regular court hours were over.

He said judges should remain patient during court proceedings and not insult or make offensive comments to lawyers. He advised lawyers not to resort to unethical tactics when losing a case.

Justice Chaudhry said judges and lawyers had a duty to protect human rights and the rule of law in times of crisis including declared states of emergency. “The judiciary serves as an essential check on the other organs of state and ensures that any laws and measures adopted to address the crisis, comply with the rule of law, human rights and where applicable international laws.” He said, “An independent judiciary administers justice and resolves disputes in a peaceful, predictable and transparent manner which in turn enables good governance, economic development and social equality.”

In an earlier speech, Justice (retired) Fakharuddin G Ebrahim, addressing the delegates from India, said Pakistan and India were neighbours and had no option but to maintain peace. He lamented that India had maintained a constitution and independent judiciary from the first days of its impendence, but Pakistanis took 26 years to make a constitution. “And the man who gave us that constitution (Zulfikar Ali Bhutto) was subjected to an extra judicial killing,” he said.

The former judge said he did not pay credence to recent whispers of a return to army rule. “I believe the military will not come. And if it comes, we will resist.” He also condemned lawyers for joining military governments in the past.

He said if judges felt their orders were not being implemented, they should issue contempt notices rather than spend so much time complaining that their decisions were being ignored.

In a brief speech, Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmani said a judge’s verdict was his opinion on a question of law and anyone was free to criticise that opinion. At the conclusion, the speakers reached a consensus that an independent judiciary was essential for the protection of people’s rights and that the executive should under no circumstances interfere with the administration of justice.

However, they also stressed that the judiciary must base its decisions on sound reasons and the law. They said some recent judgments of the Supreme Court did not appear to be impartial.

They said that the intelligence agencies had an important role during armed conflicts, but that did not mean that they should be left unaccountable. During times of conflict, the dependence of the state on intelligence agencies encouraged them to abuse their powers. Therefore, stricter oversight must be exercised over the agencies in times of conflict, they said.

Former PCO judge Irfan Qadir also spoke on the occasion. 

Published in The Express Tribune, September 12^th,  2011.