Were 36 prosecutors sacked or transferred, SC asks govt
Prosecutors on contract won’t be able to get the criminals behind bars.
KARACHI:
There was no let-up in the pressure on the Sindh government to follow orders, when the Supreme Court committee asked it on Thursday to clarify whether 36 public prosecutors appointed on contract to the anti-terrorism courts have been sacked or just transferred elsewhere.
The matter is linked to the court’s suo motu notice into the causes and reaction to Karachi’s violence this summer. The performance of the state prosecutors became the focus, with the monitoring committee asking why they were appointed on contract. Unless the prosecutors were permanent, results would not be achieved ie the criminals would not end up behind bars. The committee asked for a list of prosecutors and their status.
During the hearing on Thursday, an attempt to dodge the Supreme Court failed as Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany specifically inquired about the fate of the 36 prosecutors. “Where is the notification,” he asked. “Have they been removed or sacked or just transferred to some other and better place?”
No reply came from Sindh Additional Advocate General Miran Muhammad Shah and Prosecutor General Shahadat Awan.
Awam, who is facing the heat for the first time since the apex court took notice of the situation in Karachi, was unable to tell the court why the 92 vacancies were not filled and with the departure of another 36, how his department would function.
Referring to the contract employment, the bench once again asked whether the Anti-Terrorism Act allows contractual employment of special public prosecutors. But the PG relied on general laws.
The bench took serious notice of this statement and said that ATA 1997 does not allow any contractual appointment.
Have these vacancies been filled through the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC), asked Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany.
We have a real concern over the manner in which the prosecution department is being run and how appointments are made, said Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali.
When there are hundreds of vacant positions how could the prosecution department work, inquired the court, observing that contractual employment is used as a tool to appoint merit-less people who consume revenue collected from taxpayers.
The bench later asked the AAG to submit a written clarification on the 36 prosecutors and adjourned the proceedings till 10 am on Friday.
The committee did, however, appreciate an improvement in the performance of the police in nabbing terrorists, killers, extortionists and exempted their officers from attending the hearing of the case.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 30th, 2011.
There was no let-up in the pressure on the Sindh government to follow orders, when the Supreme Court committee asked it on Thursday to clarify whether 36 public prosecutors appointed on contract to the anti-terrorism courts have been sacked or just transferred elsewhere.
The matter is linked to the court’s suo motu notice into the causes and reaction to Karachi’s violence this summer. The performance of the state prosecutors became the focus, with the monitoring committee asking why they were appointed on contract. Unless the prosecutors were permanent, results would not be achieved ie the criminals would not end up behind bars. The committee asked for a list of prosecutors and their status.
During the hearing on Thursday, an attempt to dodge the Supreme Court failed as Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany specifically inquired about the fate of the 36 prosecutors. “Where is the notification,” he asked. “Have they been removed or sacked or just transferred to some other and better place?”
No reply came from Sindh Additional Advocate General Miran Muhammad Shah and Prosecutor General Shahadat Awan.
Awam, who is facing the heat for the first time since the apex court took notice of the situation in Karachi, was unable to tell the court why the 92 vacancies were not filled and with the departure of another 36, how his department would function.
Referring to the contract employment, the bench once again asked whether the Anti-Terrorism Act allows contractual employment of special public prosecutors. But the PG relied on general laws.
The bench took serious notice of this statement and said that ATA 1997 does not allow any contractual appointment.
Have these vacancies been filled through the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC), asked Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany.
We have a real concern over the manner in which the prosecution department is being run and how appointments are made, said Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali.
When there are hundreds of vacant positions how could the prosecution department work, inquired the court, observing that contractual employment is used as a tool to appoint merit-less people who consume revenue collected from taxpayers.
The bench later asked the AAG to submit a written clarification on the 36 prosecutors and adjourned the proceedings till 10 am on Friday.
The committee did, however, appreciate an improvement in the performance of the police in nabbing terrorists, killers, extortionists and exempted their officers from attending the hearing of the case.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 30th, 2011.