05-12-2006, 01:45 AM
In his article âAccess to Justice for allâ, Ikram Ullah in his column in daily Nation congratulating the Punjab Assembly on passing Punjab Criminal Prosecution Services Act 2006 has termed it as a quantum jump towards the much needed administration of speedy justice. Reading the article it appears actually he wanted to tell the people that how the Chief Minister of Punjab was day and night struggling hard for the welfare of common man. Incidentally at the same time in his column the most serious and well authenticated freelance writer Mr. Ardeshir Cowasjee in his column states how the people of Sindh were lucky enough that their Sindh High Court has always come to the help of people in cases of illegal constructions and environmental violations by authorities whereas on the other hand people of Punjab where âunder the clan of Choudhries of Gujratâ are being deprived of under one scheme or the other whatever the greenery was left.
In Punjab and in fact in the whole Pakistan for that purpose is there any speedy justice? There are many hurdles in dispensation of speedy justice for which both civil authorities, judicial professionals, courts and the people themselves are equally to be blamed. However the crux of the fate is that to a good extent âspeedyâ and âreally very cheapâ justice system introduced by late General Ziaul Haq we have today almost destroyed that. Late General did a great job by introducing the concept of Ombudsman system in Pakistan. In 1980s and to some extent early 1990s it delivered speedy and in practical term a âcheapâ and âtrue natural justiceâ after which period it slowly started drifting. An ex senior citizen who remained attached with this system of justice during 1980s stated soon the officials working in the ombudsman system shifted their sympathies from the suffering common man to their counterpart bureaucrats. Later on huge expense we started establishing similar systems on pretext of provincial level, this level and for this particular field for speedy disposal but fact is those proved mostly established on duplicate expense just to provide jobs to some. The fact is more General Musharraf from his heart is day and night struggling to up lift the life of the common man the more justice is being carried away from him. Financial aids, assistances or loans from Asian Bank or other international such agencies in the name of reforming the tax, justice or administration systems in fact is just a waste on promoting the âhealthâ of âsomeâ rather than strengthening the institutions. How much are we are sincere towards cheap justice system can be judged from one example. From the establishment of ombudsman system of justice in 1983 to late 1990s I do not remember ever having been called or summoned from abroad for a hearing in Pakistan from the ombudsman system established for dispensation of cheap justice. Everything worked on correspondence. Today Tuesday 09 May 2006 a Notice of Hearing is lying on my table requiring me to be present today in Pakistan for a Hearing on my complaint. Leave aside what a wonderful Text this Notice of Hearing has which shows how much our bureaucracy was developing office system. The notice is dated 19 April which the concerned ombudsman office established for speedy justice has very âspeedilyâ posted on 24 April after keeping 5 days on its tables. It has reached me on Sunday 07 May. I am working abroad. The cheap justice system has no consideration what was the condition of mail for delivery of this Notice, would the complainant be able to get leave, would he easily get an airline reservation for Pakistan in one day, would he not require any foreign immigration formalities for coming to Pakistan and above all would there be minimum Rs. 30,000 readily available in his pocket for a ticket form middle east (Rs. 100,000 in case I was in USA). No one has cared to see these things as no body has today any sympathy for a common man. What is the issue involved in complaint lying before this âspeedy and cheapâ justice system? Merely a complaint about non response to my communications by a Government Department for which no sound mind person can ever say my personal presence in Pakistan could really be needed. The most interesting is in the Overseas Pakistanis Convention held in 1997-98 some attendees, as I understand, pointed out the difficulties particularly immigration formalities involved in personally attending to their complaints. The then concerned ombudsman through a written order directed officials in his office not to summon the overseas complainants for personal hearing. Today since there is no practical accountability and bureaucrats are not afraid of from anyone, hence why should they care about such directives and issue Notice of Hearings just in routine like me in above case.
The learned people like Ikram Ullah should know that the real intent in passing Acts or establishing new systems or offices always is not that what people are let to believe but purpose behind mostly is political, vested interests namely to provide jobs to some, spending of public exchequer etc. Those who are honestly interested in speedy and cheap justice would concentrate more on removing the bottle necks from the existing already established but deteriorating systems. About two months back a letter to editor appeared from a citizen of Sargodha saying he had to visit Lahore 8 times for personal hearings in connection with his complaint result of which is not a subject here. Eight personal visits on so called Hearings one can imagine the cost. Staring the above Notice of Hearing lying on my table requiring my presence today in Pakistan, I am wondering if the all the ombudsmen before whom I filed my dozens and dozens of complaints in 1980s and till late 1990s and who almost in 90% cases provided me relief merely through correspondence and never called me for a personal haring all were incapable and not true ombudsmen? A justice giving institution whose own inside home is defective can not deliver true justice. And perhaps this is the reason some circles still believe that we do not need any major overhauling of our present judicial laws rather we need something else. These circles believe those laws left by British rulers were well drafted and are still working in India, then why should those not work here today.
Writers like Ikram Ullah if they are aware of the sanctity of the written word instead praising the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Services Act 2006 should request the Chief Minister that if he was so sincere for the public welfare then instead passing of new Bills he should immediately order that in future in Punjab during his and his cabinet Ministers welcome and security arrangements no Magistrate would be required and there would be no police contingents present on the roads for the whole day so that the Magistrate could attend the cases fixed for the day and the police and its transport could bring prisoners to the courts from the jail. This would automatically reduce about 15% delays in the courts.
In Punjab and in fact in the whole Pakistan for that purpose is there any speedy justice? There are many hurdles in dispensation of speedy justice for which both civil authorities, judicial professionals, courts and the people themselves are equally to be blamed. However the crux of the fate is that to a good extent âspeedyâ and âreally very cheapâ justice system introduced by late General Ziaul Haq we have today almost destroyed that. Late General did a great job by introducing the concept of Ombudsman system in Pakistan. In 1980s and to some extent early 1990s it delivered speedy and in practical term a âcheapâ and âtrue natural justiceâ after which period it slowly started drifting. An ex senior citizen who remained attached with this system of justice during 1980s stated soon the officials working in the ombudsman system shifted their sympathies from the suffering common man to their counterpart bureaucrats. Later on huge expense we started establishing similar systems on pretext of provincial level, this level and for this particular field for speedy disposal but fact is those proved mostly established on duplicate expense just to provide jobs to some. The fact is more General Musharraf from his heart is day and night struggling to up lift the life of the common man the more justice is being carried away from him. Financial aids, assistances or loans from Asian Bank or other international such agencies in the name of reforming the tax, justice or administration systems in fact is just a waste on promoting the âhealthâ of âsomeâ rather than strengthening the institutions. How much are we are sincere towards cheap justice system can be judged from one example. From the establishment of ombudsman system of justice in 1983 to late 1990s I do not remember ever having been called or summoned from abroad for a hearing in Pakistan from the ombudsman system established for dispensation of cheap justice. Everything worked on correspondence. Today Tuesday 09 May 2006 a Notice of Hearing is lying on my table requiring me to be present today in Pakistan for a Hearing on my complaint. Leave aside what a wonderful Text this Notice of Hearing has which shows how much our bureaucracy was developing office system. The notice is dated 19 April which the concerned ombudsman office established for speedy justice has very âspeedilyâ posted on 24 April after keeping 5 days on its tables. It has reached me on Sunday 07 May. I am working abroad. The cheap justice system has no consideration what was the condition of mail for delivery of this Notice, would the complainant be able to get leave, would he easily get an airline reservation for Pakistan in one day, would he not require any foreign immigration formalities for coming to Pakistan and above all would there be minimum Rs. 30,000 readily available in his pocket for a ticket form middle east (Rs. 100,000 in case I was in USA). No one has cared to see these things as no body has today any sympathy for a common man. What is the issue involved in complaint lying before this âspeedy and cheapâ justice system? Merely a complaint about non response to my communications by a Government Department for which no sound mind person can ever say my personal presence in Pakistan could really be needed. The most interesting is in the Overseas Pakistanis Convention held in 1997-98 some attendees, as I understand, pointed out the difficulties particularly immigration formalities involved in personally attending to their complaints. The then concerned ombudsman through a written order directed officials in his office not to summon the overseas complainants for personal hearing. Today since there is no practical accountability and bureaucrats are not afraid of from anyone, hence why should they care about such directives and issue Notice of Hearings just in routine like me in above case.
The learned people like Ikram Ullah should know that the real intent in passing Acts or establishing new systems or offices always is not that what people are let to believe but purpose behind mostly is political, vested interests namely to provide jobs to some, spending of public exchequer etc. Those who are honestly interested in speedy and cheap justice would concentrate more on removing the bottle necks from the existing already established but deteriorating systems. About two months back a letter to editor appeared from a citizen of Sargodha saying he had to visit Lahore 8 times for personal hearings in connection with his complaint result of which is not a subject here. Eight personal visits on so called Hearings one can imagine the cost. Staring the above Notice of Hearing lying on my table requiring my presence today in Pakistan, I am wondering if the all the ombudsmen before whom I filed my dozens and dozens of complaints in 1980s and till late 1990s and who almost in 90% cases provided me relief merely through correspondence and never called me for a personal haring all were incapable and not true ombudsmen? A justice giving institution whose own inside home is defective can not deliver true justice. And perhaps this is the reason some circles still believe that we do not need any major overhauling of our present judicial laws rather we need something else. These circles believe those laws left by British rulers were well drafted and are still working in India, then why should those not work here today.
Writers like Ikram Ullah if they are aware of the sanctity of the written word instead praising the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Services Act 2006 should request the Chief Minister that if he was so sincere for the public welfare then instead passing of new Bills he should immediately order that in future in Punjab during his and his cabinet Ministers welcome and security arrangements no Magistrate would be required and there would be no police contingents present on the roads for the whole day so that the Magistrate could attend the cases fixed for the day and the police and its transport could bring prisoners to the courts from the jail. This would automatically reduce about 15% delays in the courts.
