HONG KONG, March 23 (UPI) -- Recently I came across two incidents in Pakistan that I could not help but believe were very much alike. One was the severing of a young man's penis by police officers in Larkana district in Sindh province. It was a senseless and irrational act done at a police station, with several officers taking part.
Even after the local and international outcry, nothing has been done to ensure justice in this case. On the contrary, a minister is reported to have intervened to pressure the victim and his family to withdraw their complaint. The victim and his family have refused, however. The legal system is incapable of responding to this situation in any other form.
The second incident is the transformation of the chief justice of Pakistan into a non-functional figure and persuading someone else to act in his place. This incident caused the largest public response so far in the form of massive protests by both lawyers and members of the public. The response to this event by the government has been all sorts of excuses, such as the chief justice has only been sent on forced leave and nothing contrary to the constitution has been done and similar explanations.
In any country in modern times, no one would expect that an event like the severing of an arrested man's penis would take place. Such things may have happened in times past, but today no one would hesitate to term such an act as the worst type of barbarity. Even if such an act would have happened by accident or due to the unbridled psychopathic behavior of some officer, others would have intervened to prevent such an act.
That the act was done collectively excludes the possibility of it being done out of pure lunacy. Under such circumstances, any state that respects the law, and also its own dignity as a state, would have acted with great speed to ensure justice and to demonstrate to the public, both locally and internationally, its remorse. No statement of compassion or regret has been made by the government, however, regarding this incident.
A chief justice is the most respected and honored individual within an independent judiciary. The independence of the judiciary is universally agreed to be a component that no rule-of-law system can function without. A chief justice is not just an individual but the topmost component in upholding the basic norms of the rule of law.
If a chief justice is to be removed at all, there are norms and standards to follow, not only to pay him or her due respect, but also to assure the public of the seriousness with which a particular action is being undertaken. However, to casually call a chief justice to an army camp and make him non-functional is to turn the entire system of justice into a fiction.
What is worse is that even after there were unprecedented protests from lawyers and the general public, the government was unable to act with any seriousness except for making trivial comments and using the police and military to attack the protesting public. This response included an attack on the media that was commenting on this issue.
Meanwhile, the law minister has come forward to defend the government's action by saying that the chief justice had been sent on leave and that nothing worse had happened. This statement of the present law minister was rightly condemned by the former law minister who has blamed the utmost negligence on the part of the authors of the action against the chief justice. The present law minister is reported to have told the protesting lawyers "not to create a law and order situation and try to wait patiently for the verdict without creating a hindrance." The question may be asked, however: Who has created a law and order situation in both of these instances? Is it not the police officers who have engaged in a most uncivilized act against one of their citizens and the government that has acted against all universally accepted norms and standards in the removal of a chief justice? What "law and order" are the law minister and the government talking about?
The government has also talked about the constitution. What kind of a constitution would allow a chief justice of the country to be dealt with in this manner?
All this points to a situation where words like "the constitution" and "the law" have lost their meaning within the context of Pakistan. All that people have are those who use their muscle to rule and make all sorts of nonsensical excuses in an effort to soothe an angry public.
This nightmare is what the people of Pakistan are facing. The people who go to police stations have reason to fear a similar incident as what occurred at the Larkana police station, and all judges and anyone concerned with justice have reason to expect to be treated in the same manner as Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. In fact, this is what has been taking place in the field of law in Pakistan in recent years. It is not surprising that the lawyers have finally begun to protest.
In the enthusiasm to fight terrorism, the civilized world has supported the military coup and what transpired afterwards in Pakistan. Even now, there is no sign that the world outside is waking up in order to support the lawyers and the public who are making a last-ditch effort to save the system. What happened to the man at the Larkana police station and Chief Justice Chaudhry seems to be of no concern to anyone.
To keep silent anymore on the issue of the rule of law in Pakistan is nothing less than betrayal of the country and its people.
--
(Basil Fernando is director of the Asian Human Rights Commission based in Hong Kong. He is a Sri Lankan lawyer who has also been a senior U.N. human-rights officer in Cambodia. He has published several books and written extensively on human-rights issues in Asia.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
