For the last ten days or so, the judges have been keeping an eye on how the government and police have been following directions issued by the apex court. The full-bench hearings were wrapped up in mid-September.
In particular, the prosecution of the criminals, target killers and extortionists came under the microscope. Prosecution runs into trouble when political appointments are made. Karachi has been plagued by criminals with political patronage. The committee held that if prosecutors are appointed on contract, they will not be able to produce results, that is, put the criminals behind bars.
On Friday, the advocate general of Sindh accompanied by the prosecutor general appeared before the committee. During the hearing, Law Secretary Ghulam Nabi Shah referred to section 18 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (1997) which allows for the appointment of prosecutors on contract.
In response, Justice Jamali asked him to read Article 242 of the Constitution, saying that constitutional provisions prevail over all other law, ordinary or special.
The secretary was of the opinion that prosecutors could be appointed on a case-by-case basis. But the committee held that as Article 242 exists, prosecutors can be appointed only through the Sindh Public Service Commission.
Later, while talking to the media, the secretary said that in view of the Supreme Court’s observation, special public prosecutors working on contract were deemed to be removed.
On Thursday, the judges asked the Sindh government to submit a clarification on whether 36 prosecutors appointed on contract to the anti-terrorism courts have been suspended, transferred or fired, according to the orders of the Supreme Court.
A detailed judgment is now awaited in the suo motu proceedings.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 1st, 2011.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ