What about the children?

Stakeholders are confused about the legislative competency of parliament on the subject of child rights.

KARACHI: The 18th constitutional amendment passed by the parliament on April 15 this year has been receiving praise from many, but the abolishment of concurrent list has also led to a debate within relevant ministries and government departments on the future status of child rights.

Stakeholders are particularly confused about the legislative competency of the parliament and coordination mechanism at the national level on the subject of children, The Express Tribune has learnt.

This has made the future of various laws, bills and policies concerning children, which under process during the time the amendment was passed, uncertain.

Following the abolishment of the concurrent list, legislative initiatives such as National Commission on the Rights of Children Bill, 2009, the (Child Protection) Criminal Law Amendment Bill, 2009 (to be introduced by the Federal Government), the Charter of Child Rights Bill, 2009, the Prohibition of Corporal Punishment Bill, 2010, and the Child Marriages Restraint (Amendment) Bill, 2009 (pending before the National Assembly) have been put on hold.

“Through the 18th Constitutional Amendment Act 2010, a new entry at No. 32 has been introduced mentioning the words international treaties, conventions and agreements etc, but there confusion persists over who will legislate and implement them now,” said Iqbal Detho, Regional Manager of the NGO Sparc (Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child).

He added that this confusion is evident from the rejection of the National Commission on the Rights of Children Bill, 2009, by the Law and Justice Division on the grounds that the parliament cannot legislate on the subject of children after the 18th constitutional amendment.

“While we do appreciate the move of the abolishment of the concurrent list, the government has failed to clarify how provinces will deal with child rights now,” comments Samina Sardar, Adviser Child Rights at the NGO Plan International. “There is no administrative structure in place in the provinces right now to deal with the subject.”

Activists fear that decentralisation may lead to further discrimination against children as the government did not consider certain implications following the amendment. They are also questioning the legislative measures of the state in compliance of its ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

The UNCRC clearly specifies that the state is responsible to take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures for full implementation of its convention and that “decentralisation of power, through devolution and delegation of government, does not in any way reduce the direct responsibility of the government to fulfil its obligations to all children within its jurisdiction, regardless of the state structure”.

It also states that the federal government has to ensure that the devolved authorities have the necessary financial, human and other resources to effectively discharge their responsibilities for the implementation of the convention.

“For this to happen you need to grant provincial autonomy first, which we did through the historic amendment,” says Federal Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Babar Awan, adding that activists need to be patient and let the provinces deliver. “There is nothing wrong if the parliament has rejected the bill on child rights on this ground; the federation had to draw the line somewhere.”

But Detho points towards the fourth schedule to the constitution (Federal Legislative List Part I) which states that the task of ‘implementing treaties and agreements’ still lies under the federal government.

Despite this, the federation has failed to deliver, he adds. This is evident from the remarks by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child at its 52nd session in October 2009, during which the committee expressed its concern about the apparent lack of a legislative framework in Pakistan.

Awan, however, argues that a country like Pakistan that is already over legislated, the passage of aforementioned bills would not serve the purpose. “We don’t need more laws that are poorly respected and implemented,” he said, rejecting the call by what he terms ‘agenda-driven NGOs’. “We don’t need to guidance from them, the government knows what needs to be done.”

Published in The Express Tribune, September 26^th, 2010.