Karachi suo motu case: After the killings, how to move forward, SC
Policy of dialogue, reconciliation to continue, government tells SC.
KARACHI:
The push and pull of arguments on government responsibility and the constitution marked the Supreme Court hearing on Karachi violence on Thursday. The judges repeatedly reined in the federal government’s lawyer - they did not want to hear a political speech but concrete solutions.
While suggesting a way forward, Senator Babar Awan, who has been representing the federal government, made a categorical statement that the centre would continue with its policy of reconciliation and dialogue with political forces.
The suggestion was vociferously disapproved by the five-member full bench. You have reports, briefings, joint interrogation reports, audio and video recodings and yet you have said nothing. Who is the government going to hold a dialogue with? The women who were widowed or the children who were orphaned, asked Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
You are presenting your political view, observed Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany.
Tell us the way forward in view of this overwhelming material, said the bench. In eleven months you failed to appoint judges to the anti-terrorism courts. Hundreds of people have been killed. No, this is not acceptable. Whatever you want to argue or say, give it to us in writing, the bench told Awan.
“Do not make a political speech,” it repeated. “Tell us the way forward.”
Awan went on to state that the situation in certain parts of Karachi had been brought under control to a great extent. This policy would continue.
This declaration again evoked the quick disapproval of the bench, which asked if controlling crime was a “policy”? It is an obligation for the executive, said Justice Osmany.
Awan said that the government, at both the federal and provincial levels, was acting strictly in consonance with the constitution. Elected representatives understand the responsibility of defending the country internally, he said. Inclusive efforts are being made to maintain an atmosphere of peace and harmony.
Concluding his arguments, Awan said that, “The xecutive authority of Pakistan has the capacity, mechanism and will to control any internal disturbance and this pleading is backed by a history of controlling such situations in the recent past.”
The bench asked him to put all of this down on paper.
Earlier in the day
Referring to some of Awan’s earlier arguments, the bench said, “Keep in mind [that] we are for democracy. We have ... done what was supposed to be done by the government.” How can you say that we are against democracy, the bench said, referring to its July 31 judgment. After it was passed, it added, “every unconstitutional activity has come to an end”.
Has the government fulfilled its responsibility as enshrined in Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution? Are the lives of people, property secure? Try to find answers from the Constitution and not outside it, remarked Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
Democratic order and constitutional dispensation alone can prevail in this country as the courts are functioning, he said.
Awan quickly said, “It must be appreciated that every institution, including parliament, is working.”
Except in Karachi, remarked Justice Osmany.
Awan argued that a wrong impression was being created about 300,000 arms licences. This was stated by former home minister, the bench observed and turned to the Advocate General of Sindh, asking whether he had brought details as asked. The AGP submitted the report.
Pointing out the most disturbed areas by jurisdiction, Awan submitted that nine troubled spots have been located in the precincts of 30 police stations out of 112 police stations in the Karachi division. In the rest of the police stations, there is no organised crime.
Why is it so, came a quick query from the bench.
Because of law and order, came the matching reply.
No, give us a reason, said the bench, adding that no credit went to the police but it went to the citizenry which is responsible and peace loving.
It has become a fashion to criticise the government when it does something or remains silent, retorted the federal government’s lawyer. “It cannot be said that everything has failed in the entire Karachi.”
“Are these areas free from extortionists too,” asked Justice Ghulam Rabbani. The federal counsel candidly admitted there was extortion in these areas.
Awan defended the issue of the violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens of Karachi, saying that no one has alleged that the federal or provincial governments or their functionaries have violated them.
The bench disapproved and asked him to go through the reports from the intelligence and other law enforcing agencies.
It is a question of responsibility - 1,310 people were killed and the government is shying away from taking responsibility, observed the chief justice. We are fortunate to have a constitution, written documents that provide solutions too. The court would have wrapped up the matter had the government made a simple statement that it would do its duty as specified in the constitution, said the chief justice.
“No one could take this responsibility,” replied Awan.
Leave the ifs and buts (and) political exegencies (aside), said the bench, giving India’s example where the Vajpayee government fell by a single vote.
“The tenure of the government is not decided by me,” replied Awan.
He referred to Articles 232 and 245 of the constitution on calling in the armed forces in aid of civilian power and the suspension of the high courts. The bench was asked to take steps which are beyond the constitution, said Awan.
We are bound by our own judgement - that everyone has to work and follow the constitution and this was incorporated in Article 6 (under an amendment by the current parliament), which we appreciate, the bench said. “We are here to defend and preserve the Constitution.”
Our concern is the killing of innocent citizens. A policeman on duty was killed and so far nothing has been done to trace (the killers). If this happens with a police official, it speaks volumes of our and your efficiency, the bench said.
The bench reserved its judgment while seeking daily reports on the 306 cases that are under scrutiny.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 16th, 2011.
The push and pull of arguments on government responsibility and the constitution marked the Supreme Court hearing on Karachi violence on Thursday. The judges repeatedly reined in the federal government’s lawyer - they did not want to hear a political speech but concrete solutions.
While suggesting a way forward, Senator Babar Awan, who has been representing the federal government, made a categorical statement that the centre would continue with its policy of reconciliation and dialogue with political forces.
The suggestion was vociferously disapproved by the five-member full bench. You have reports, briefings, joint interrogation reports, audio and video recodings and yet you have said nothing. Who is the government going to hold a dialogue with? The women who were widowed or the children who were orphaned, asked Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
You are presenting your political view, observed Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany.
Tell us the way forward in view of this overwhelming material, said the bench. In eleven months you failed to appoint judges to the anti-terrorism courts. Hundreds of people have been killed. No, this is not acceptable. Whatever you want to argue or say, give it to us in writing, the bench told Awan.
“Do not make a political speech,” it repeated. “Tell us the way forward.”
Awan went on to state that the situation in certain parts of Karachi had been brought under control to a great extent. This policy would continue.
This declaration again evoked the quick disapproval of the bench, which asked if controlling crime was a “policy”? It is an obligation for the executive, said Justice Osmany.
Awan said that the government, at both the federal and provincial levels, was acting strictly in consonance with the constitution. Elected representatives understand the responsibility of defending the country internally, he said. Inclusive efforts are being made to maintain an atmosphere of peace and harmony.
Concluding his arguments, Awan said that, “The xecutive authority of Pakistan has the capacity, mechanism and will to control any internal disturbance and this pleading is backed by a history of controlling such situations in the recent past.”
The bench asked him to put all of this down on paper.
Earlier in the day
Referring to some of Awan’s earlier arguments, the bench said, “Keep in mind [that] we are for democracy. We have ... done what was supposed to be done by the government.” How can you say that we are against democracy, the bench said, referring to its July 31 judgment. After it was passed, it added, “every unconstitutional activity has come to an end”.
Has the government fulfilled its responsibility as enshrined in Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution? Are the lives of people, property secure? Try to find answers from the Constitution and not outside it, remarked Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
Democratic order and constitutional dispensation alone can prevail in this country as the courts are functioning, he said.
Awan quickly said, “It must be appreciated that every institution, including parliament, is working.”
Except in Karachi, remarked Justice Osmany.
Awan argued that a wrong impression was being created about 300,000 arms licences. This was stated by former home minister, the bench observed and turned to the Advocate General of Sindh, asking whether he had brought details as asked. The AGP submitted the report.
Pointing out the most disturbed areas by jurisdiction, Awan submitted that nine troubled spots have been located in the precincts of 30 police stations out of 112 police stations in the Karachi division. In the rest of the police stations, there is no organised crime.
Why is it so, came a quick query from the bench.
Because of law and order, came the matching reply.
No, give us a reason, said the bench, adding that no credit went to the police but it went to the citizenry which is responsible and peace loving.
It has become a fashion to criticise the government when it does something or remains silent, retorted the federal government’s lawyer. “It cannot be said that everything has failed in the entire Karachi.”
“Are these areas free from extortionists too,” asked Justice Ghulam Rabbani. The federal counsel candidly admitted there was extortion in these areas.
Awan defended the issue of the violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens of Karachi, saying that no one has alleged that the federal or provincial governments or their functionaries have violated them.
The bench disapproved and asked him to go through the reports from the intelligence and other law enforcing agencies.
It is a question of responsibility - 1,310 people were killed and the government is shying away from taking responsibility, observed the chief justice. We are fortunate to have a constitution, written documents that provide solutions too. The court would have wrapped up the matter had the government made a simple statement that it would do its duty as specified in the constitution, said the chief justice.
“No one could take this responsibility,” replied Awan.
Leave the ifs and buts (and) political exegencies (aside), said the bench, giving India’s example where the Vajpayee government fell by a single vote.
“The tenure of the government is not decided by me,” replied Awan.
He referred to Articles 232 and 245 of the constitution on calling in the armed forces in aid of civilian power and the suspension of the high courts. The bench was asked to take steps which are beyond the constitution, said Awan.
We are bound by our own judgement - that everyone has to work and follow the constitution and this was incorporated in Article 6 (under an amendment by the current parliament), which we appreciate, the bench said. “We are here to defend and preserve the Constitution.”
Our concern is the killing of innocent citizens. A policeman on duty was killed and so far nothing has been done to trace (the killers). If this happens with a police official, it speaks volumes of our and your efficiency, the bench said.
The bench reserved its judgment while seeking daily reports on the 306 cases that are under scrutiny.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 16th, 2011.