The Obama Administration has repeatedly recognized the importance of Pakistan to regional and U.S. national security. Given this recognition, and taking note of Vice President Biden’s insightful proposals before leaving the Senate, the President should abandon his predecessor’s failed policy and support meaningful democratic reforms and the restoration of the judiciary rather than military engagement alone.

March 9 marked the two-year anniversary of the Pakistani Lawyers’ Movement, which formed to restore the Rule of Law in wake of executive assaults on the judiciary. After Pervez Musharraf – a military dictator supported by the U.S. – sacked the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court in March 2007, the Lawyers’ Movement took to the streets, building a national movement across all sectors of society to restore democracy. In the response to mass protests, Musharraf declared an emergency, suspended the constitution and ordered the arrest and detention of judges, lawyers, journalists, and civil society members. Musharraf claimed that he could not fight the U.S. “War on Terror,” while facing the democratic constraints of an independent judiciary and free press.

Despite U.S. support for Musharraf, he was ultimately forced by public pressure to resign in August 2008. This was the first time in Pakistan’s 62 year history that a military ruler peacefully stepped down from power. However, despite Musharraf’s resignation, general elections in February 2008 in which the Pakistani people overwhelmingly supported judicial restoration, and repeated promises from Pakistan’s political elite, the judiciary remains politicized – as illustrated last week when it ruled the Sharif brothers ineligible. To this date the judiciary has not been fully restored and the Rule of Law continues to wither.

President Asif Zardari continues to defy the will of the electorate by failing to restore the judiciary. Zardari, like the military rulers before him, has no interest in allowing a Court the independence necessary to check his unrestrained fiat. Like Musharraf, Zardari persists in manipulating and intimidating the judiciary as a means of consolidating his personal political control. Last week’s Supreme Court decision concerning the Sharif brothers’ eligibility to contest elections is a perfect illustration.

Nawaz Sharif alleged that Zardari offered to drop their case in exchange for the Sharifs’ assurance that they would end their call for the restoration of the judiciary. Circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that Zardari engineered the court’s decision in order to eliminate his political rivals and did so through three judges who were unconstitutionally appointed by Musharraf. Using the court’s decision as cover, Zardari ordered that Punjab, a province previously controlled by the publicly elected PLM-N, come under Executive rule.

In a further effort to silent political dissent, Zardari suspended the PPP party membership of Aitzaz Ahsan, a leader of the Lawyers’ Movement. Pakistani lawyers and civil society continue to demand the restoration of the judiciary and the completion of the transition to democracy. In response, Zardari has pushed through legislation banning peaceful political assembly in Islamabad, Punjab and Sindh, barred the press from entering the National Assembly and preemptively arrested political party opponents and lawyers.

The U.S. supported Pakistani government, in spite of its attacks on the Rule of Law, has undermined not only democracy in Pakistan, but also U.S. interests in the region. For example, since 2001, Musharraf squandered over $11 billion dollars in direct U.S. aid intended for fighting terrorism, which he allegedly diverted to retain his support within the military and upgrade weapons poised against India, while terrorism related offenses increased. U.S. military aid to Pakistan continues unabated, further entrenching the position of the military at the expense of civilian institutions.

In the three months since Obama has taken office, his administration has continued to bomb targets inside Pakistan while failing to insist on democratic reforms. U.S. policy should not focus solely on the military aspects of “The War on Terror.” Rather, it should aim to win popular support by advancing democracy. This view compels ending unconditional support for the military and instead supporting independent institutions that hold the greatest promise for building genuine democracy in Pakistan. Even the Pakistani government acknowledges that a military policy alone will not bring sustainable regional or international security, as evidenced by Zardari’s recent negotiation with Taliban militants in the northern Swat Valley.

Specifically, Obama should commit to support the plan outlined by Joe Biden when still Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senator John Kerry. The U.S. should curb it’s dependence on the ISI and military, impose rigorous auditing procedures on all future military aid and invest in long-term development projects which focus on education and public infrastructure to demonstrate U.S. support for the people – rather than the military generals – of Pakistan. At a minimum, Washington should insist upon the restoration of all judges deposed in 2007. Failure to do so will prolong instability in Pakistan and leave the rest of the world subject to the country’s continued lawlessness.

SUPPORT THE RULE OF LAW AND THE LAWYERS OF PAKISTAN ON MONDAY – 01/26/09!

WHAT:         Pervez Musharraf Lecture (World Affairs Council)

WHEN:         Monday January 26, 2009

WHERE:      The Franklin Institute, 222 North 20th Street Philadelphia, PA

TIME:           5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

CONTACT: pakistanjusticecoalition@gmail.com

Please join the Pakistan Justice Coalition and the Philadelphia Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild on Monday January 26, 2009, to reiterate the significance of the rule of law and human rights over repression and autocratic rule.  As lawyers we have a professional and ethical responsibility to confront violations of the rule of law no matter where they occur.

See: Philadelphia Bar Association’s Statement; Pennsylvania Bar Association’s President’s Statement; American Bar Association’s President Neukom’s Statement; Defending Dictatorship: U.S. Foreign Policy and Pakistan’s Struggle for Democracy.

The World Affairs Council of Philadelphia has invited, Pervez Musharraf, former military dictator of Pakistan “to address the prospects for peace and the formidable challenges of diplomacy in South Asia.”  It is ironic that a former military dictator has been invited to lecture on the subject of democracy and the prospect of peace when his rule resulted in Pakistan becoming, as President Clinton declared, “the most dangerous country in the world.”

The Bush Administration supported the Musharraf regime on the grounds that it was an ally in the so-called “war on terrorism” and overlooked its violations of fundamental democratic rights.  However, the true battle being waged today is not between democracy and “terrorism.” Rather, it is the battle between advancing the values of democracy, rule of law and human rights, on the one hand, and repression and autocratic rule on the other. The way to combat extremism and the repressive rule to which it aspires is by supporting the expansion, rather than the contraction, of human rights.

Background Information:

On November 3, 2007, the President, in his capacity as Chief of Army Staff, declared an emergency and issued a Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) and suspended the constitution. Musharraf ordered the arrest and detention of twelve (12) of seventeen (17) Supreme Court Justices, sixty (60) Senior Judges and several thousand lawyers, journalists, and civil society members throughout Pakistan.  Further, the (PCO) suspended fundamental rights guaranteed by Pakistan’s Constitution such as freedom of movement, assembly, association, speech and property rights.  In response bar associations all over the world condemned Musharraf’s actions.  The Philadelphia Bar Association stated, “We condemn the actions of the President of Pakistan, who has taken it upon himself to violently attack the lawyers and judges as he systematically shuts down his nation’s lawful institutions of justice. That he does this in the name of fighting terrorism is horrible in the extreme. Institutions of democracy should never be victims of fear. It is precisely this strength of democracy that guarantees that a just society may continue, especially in troubled times.”  On August 18, 2008, in order to avoid impeachment proceedings, Musharraf resigned as Pakistan’s President.

Musharraf’s rule at a glance:

• General Perevz Musharraf came to power in 1999 through a military coup;
• Musharraf held the post of President and Chief of Army Staff (COAS) in violation of Pakistan’s Constitution;
• Post 9-11, Pakistan received $11 billion dollars in direct U.S. aid for fighting terrorism, funds that Musharraf diverted in efforts to retain his support within the military and upgrade weapons to be used against India while terrorism related violence increased;
• Pakistan’s intelligence agencies detained hundreds of persons without providing them any procedural due process protections pursuant to Pakistan’s Constitution.  Over six hundred persons are still missing in Pakistan;
• Journalists and press outlets faced state censorship, repressive policies imposed by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), direct and indirect threats to media institutions and individual journalists, loss of advertising revenues, revocation of broadcasting licenses and, most insidiously self-censorship;
• Journalists working along the Afghan border alleged that Musharraf’s government engaged in direct support of militants by providing arms, ammunition and supplies;
• Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) admitted that they led the effort to manipulate Pakistan’s national election in 2002 and offered to drop corruption cases against candidates who would back President Musharraf and Musharraf issued a series of executive decrees to bar political party leaders from contesting the polls;
• A historically unprecedented number of national and provincial seats went to the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), an alliance of six religious fundamentalist (Pro-Taliban) parties;
• In 2006, Musharraf reached an agreement with tribal leaders along the Afghan border in Balochistan entailing the withdrawal of Pakistan’s military from the tribal areas in exchange for self-policing by tribal leaders. A  2007 NIE revealed that, after having been displaced from Afghanistan by the NATO invasion following 9-11, al-Qaeda had reconstituted its network and expanded its original capabilities in Pakistan;
• Nuclear proliferation by Pakistani authorities remains uninvestigated. In 2004, nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, whose work establishing Pakistan as a nuclear state won him acclaim as a national hero, admitted to running an international technology smuggling operation which provided nuclear weapons technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea. Despite his initial arrest, he was eventually pardoned by Musharraf and has yet to be produced for debriefing by international investigators despite demands by the U.S. House of Representatives and the Swedish Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission; and
• Prior to his 1999 military coup, Musharraf led Pakistan in an armed conflict with India in the Kargil region in northern Kashmir.  The Pakistani military fought alongside armed militant insurgents such as Lashkar-e-Taiba.

During his horrid rule the General denied justice to citizens of Pakistan, with a vengeance: politicians were hauled up indiscriminately after his coup in 1999 and were assaulted and humiliated purposefully to create a critical mass for the Q League; Akbar Bugti was killed in cold blood; the chief justice and a majority of senior judges were removed illegally and locked up in their houses along with their families; lawyers fighting for rule of law were incarcerated and intimidated no end; the media was taken off-air illegally and plain-speaking journalists were blacklisted; the misguided youth of Lal Masjid were initially emboldened and then mercilessly executed; Aafia Siddiqui and hundreds of others were kidnapped and are still under illegal detention; and civilians in our tribal areas have been turned into cannon-fodder in the misconceived war against terror. This is only to name a few broad categories.

But being meted out justice is a fundamental human right. We must treat Musharraf fairly, strictly in accordance with the law and the mandated due process. The question of his future is now agitating the consciousness of our nation. Now that he has resigned instead of facing impeachment, should he be punished for his unconstitutional acts and gross misconduct in exercise of state power? Would holding him accountable for his deeds amount to creating a conflict between the past and the present that could possibly compromise the future of this country? Is it time to move on and let bygones be bygones? Hearing arguments of Musharraf proponents or detractors of the deposed judges, why does one get the sense that our entire nation and Pakistan’s state apparatus has one collective brain and if that is focused on role of the president or need for an independent judiciary, the “common man” will remain poor and hungry? There is no doubt that it is time for
 Pakistan to move forward. But is it correct to assume that holding Musharraf accountable for his actions and misdeeds amounts to remaining mired in the past?

There are multiple theories that explain the need for accountability and justify punishment. Foremost among them are concepts such as retribution and deterrence. Retribution is backward-looking and deterrence is forward-looking, and punishment qualifies as part of the justice system for being a combination of backward- and forward-looking elements. The fundamental contract between the citizen and the state is based on the premise that each of them has certain rights and responsibilities. Being treated in accordance with the law is an inalienable right of the citizen and not discriminating between the citizens is a responsibility of the state. So, then, what is the legal argument that could justify offering Musharraf a safe passage or freedom from liability? If the actions or inactions of other citizens have legal consequences, why should the General be treated any different? The notion of rule of law cannot coexist with the impunity that our military
 dictators have enjoyed all along.

Our Western friends and their emissaries are also pushing the safe exit argument forcefully. If nations have interests and not personal loyalties, why have Anne Patterson and Mark Lyle Grant been frantically negotiating with key players in Pakistan, overzealous to ensure a “dignified” exit for Musharraf? It is not just about the person of Musharraf, but about coming to the rescue of a loyal autocrat willing to do the bidding of the US against the popular wishes of his people. The US needs to establish on record for future purposes that loyalty is rewarded and that the US secures the future of an ally who sticks his neck out to promote American interests. And herein lies a lesson to be learnt by us. We must also send a message to our foreign “allies” that propping up dictators at the expense of state institutions and democracy for instant results will not work in Pakistan anymore.

We also need to send out a message to our prospective “saviours” that, notwithstanding the unflinching support offered by unrepresentative forces at home and abroad, violating the Constitution and the law will have unpleasant consequences. This debate is not about personalities. We have learnt the same fundamental lesson from all dictatorships: military intervention is the problem and not the solution to Pakistan’s myriad ills. Many in Pakistan celebrated the arrival of Musharraf in 1999 and they are celebrating his exit even more fervently. But the story of the removal and return of the PPP and PML-N governments in the 1990s or the departure and return of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif after years in exile is no different.

In a country with innumerable problems that are not amenable to quick fixes, a change of façade brings new hope and is thus welcomed. But we cannot afford to keep musical chairs between dictatorship and controlled democracy going. We need an uninterrupted democratic era. However, it is only natural for present miseries to fade the memory of past woes. The lessons drummed in by Musharraf’s recklessness might also be lost soon and that is why it is imperative to create institutional structures that prevent praetorianism from blossoming in future. Three things sustained the Musharraf regime: his people, his policies and the warped non-consensual manner in which the policies were contrived. Musharraf’s exit has begun to unravel the first element of the regime – the people who sustained the regime. His policies and policymaking procedures must now also be swiftly revamped.

The biggest damage that Musharraf did to Pakistan was on Nov 3, when he attempted to decimate the Constitution and the promise of an independent judiciary. Now that the perpetrator is out of the way, the PPP-led coalition must lose no time to restore the deposed judges. The memory of the suffering caused by the Musharraf regime will fade away soon, and it will take time for the fruits of democracy to trickle down to ordinary people. In the interim phase a strong and independent judiciary willing to uphold and defend the Constitution will be the real structural impediment to military adventurism. Further, even from the PPP’s perspective, the right time for restoration is now. Twice before the PPP leadership managed to paint itself in a corner in such a manner that restoring the judges would have offered the ruling party no political mileage.

Had Prime Minister Gilani restored the judges when he announced their release from illegal detention, the PPP would have received a lion’s share of the credit for restoration despite not making it an electoral issue. By flouting that opportunity and later reneging on the commitment made in the Murree Declaration, the PPP attracted opprobrium from across the country, even from friends of the party. However, today is a new day. Asif Zardari has successfully spearheaded a movement that has led to Musharraf’s ouster without confrontation. If he follows through by restoring the judges without further delay, the PPP’s preferred strategy to reverse the actions of Nov 3 will stand vindicated. Having been given a third opportunity, the PPP leadership must not squander it this time.

To mark the change that democracy has ushered in, the PPP-led coalition must urgently initiate a parliamentary debate on Pakistan’s security situation in the tribal areas. Democracy has never been flaunted as the most efficient system of government, only the safest. And the safety feature is a product of consensus. Irrespective of the substantive decisions reached in Parliament, to the extent that we get the process right we will have taken a giant step towards resolving the twin issues of insurgency and terrorism.

Let us waste no breath over Musharraf’s legacy. But the treatment we mete out to him will have consequences for the rule of law and constitutionalism in Pakistan, our civil-military imbalance, as well as the lingering ability of foreign actors to dwarf our sovereignty and political autonomy. While closing the Musharraf chapter let us also remember that the ball is now in the court of politicians. Let this not be another brief turn that ends up discrediting democracy as a system unfit for the genius of Pakistanis. From here on it is not about Musharraf anymore. It is about the legacy and the future of the PPP and the PML-N.

Musharraf’s rapid fall from power demonstrates the bankruptcy of the Bush administration’s policy of advocating liberty while supporting autocracy. As we have stated, the real struggle today is not between democracy and terror, but between those who support expansion of democratic and human rights and those who seek to infringe upon them. The Bush Administration supported the Musharraf regime on the grounds that it was an ally in the so-called “war on terrorism” and overlooked its violations of the most fundamental democratic rights. Both Administrations also refused to respect judicial independence, accepting the removal and incarceration of over half of Pakistan’s legitimate judges. In the face of popular opposition that even potentially rigged elections could not conceal, the Musharraf presidency was finally –and fortunately — doomed to failure.

President Bush often claims liberty is the birthright and natural desire of all people. Had he really believed his rhetoric, however, he would have supported the heroic lawyers of Pakistan in their demands, rather than the now-deposed and discredited Musharraf.

The Lawyers Movement has represented the legal profession at its best. We stand with it and share the joy of its triumph. While Pakistan’s future remains far from certain, it has taken an enormous step forward

Further, the draft reads in part: “And whereas, this assembly is mindful that the foundation of democracy cannot survive without a return to the rule of law. We are mindful that the rule of law cannot survive the rule of the gun unless we have an independent judiciary. And, we are cognizant that we shall never have an independent judiciary if judges of the superior courts of this country are imprisoned at the whims of a lone individual.”

The lawyers will be speaking at a number of law schools, including NYU, Columbia and Rutgers, and will be the guests of honor at the mid-Atlantic conference of the National Lawyers Guild in Philadelphia. Following the conference, they will travel to Washington D.C. to address policy makers regarding the impacts of current U.S. policy in Pakistan.

“We are pleased to be able to host our inspirational Pakistani colleagues and to honor the achievements of lawyers’ movement in promoting justice and the rule of law,” stated Pakistani Justice Coalition co-chair Ryan Hancock, who recently returned from a 10-day fact-finding visit to Pakistan.

The lawyers have been at the forefront of the lawyers’ movement that arose following the suspension of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry in March 2007. Following the November 3, 2007 coup, in which then-General Pervez Musharraf deposed more than half of the sitting appellate judges in Pakistan, lawyers again took to the streets and hundreds were imprisoned. Biographies of the lawyers are included below.

“This speaking tour will provide an opportunity for lawyers, law students, judges and policy makers in the United States to witness the passion of the Pakistani lawyers’ movement,” stated Rule of Law Project Director Devin Theriot-Orr.

While it is unclear what role the government has played in the Youtube ban, allegations are stirring that the ban is in response to videos of election rigging that have recently surfaced. Some sources report that the ban has come directly from the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, though this report has yet to be verified. The source references an appeal from Micronet Broadband for users to write to Youtube and request that the “offending” videos be removed.

The videos [linked below] depict election officials distributing multiple ballots to each MQM party member—all verified with a single individual’s fingerprint. MQM is a Sindhi party and part of President Musharaff’s dwindling support base.A Youtube ban only adds to concerns about significant restraints on press freedom, imposed in the wake of the November 3 declaration of emergency rule, that have yet to be lifted.

• Evidence of Vote Rigging Video

Their detention, since November 3, 2007, is in violation of Pakistani and International law.
The detention of the Chief Justice is in violation of basic due process principles embodied in Articles 9 and 10 of the Pakistani Constitution. As highlighted in a recent Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) Briefing Paper:

The government has never issued a detention order for the Chief Justice. In the absence of a valid detention order, any detained person must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of his or her arrest.¹ The detention of the Chief Justice and his family is unconstitutional because the government has deprived the family of liberty without acting “in accordance with law.”²

The detention orders for Ahsan, Kurd and Mehmood are invalid on two grounds: failure to allege specific facts justifying detention and vagueness.

For detention orders to be valid under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance of 1960, they must allege specific facts justifying the conclusion that the detainee is a threat to “the maintenance of public order.”³ Instead of alleging specific facts, the orders contain conclusory statements claiming, for example, that the detainees are involved in activities challenging the writ of the government, have designs to create law and order situations, and will make inflammatory speeches that will promote hatred. A detention order cannot stand on such conclusory allegations without specific facts to support them.

Furthermore, under Pakistani law, detention orders must “not be vague and indefinite” so as to allows a detainee “to make representation against his detention…”⁴ The detention orders against Ahsan, Kurd and Mehmood fail to cite any specific acts by the detainees or to adduce any evidence justifying their detention. As such, the detention orders-and the physical detention-of Ahsan, Kurd, and Mehmood are unconstitutional.
The detention of Chaudry, Ahsan, Kurd and Mehmood are also in contravention of customary international law as established by The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR guarantees that “[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest [or] detention.”⁵ The arrest and detention of Chaudry, Ahsan, Kurd and Mehmood are arbitrary under, and thus violative of, the UDHR because they are in clear violation of Pakistani law
Pakistan Justice Coalition echoes LUMS’ call for the government of Pakistan to end its policy of arbitrary arrest and detention and for the government to respect the fundamental rights of free expression, peaceful assembly and movement.
Pakistan Justice Coalition further calls on international human rights organizations to declare the detainees political prisoners and to vehemently call for their release.