960414

NA to continue debate on

requisitioned session

on Legal Reforms Bill

NISAR AHMAD SHEIKH

ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly was prorogued on Sunday but would continue the sittings in the requisitioned session summoned by the Opposition.

The Deputy Leader of Opposition, Gohar Ayub Khan, created a sensation when the Speaker was about to prorogue the session by making the announcement that the Opposition withdraws its requisition. The Speaker observed that when the session had been requisitioned and the date for it fixed, the Opposition is morally and legally bound to honour it.

State Minister for Law Mian Raza Rabbani was strongly critical of the Opposition for suddenly withdrawing the requisition and said this clearly establishes the duplicity of the Opposition and backtracking of the agreement reached with them. It was clearly agreed that the session would be prorogued and would be followed by the requisitioned session.

Ghulam Farid Kathia, Parliamentary Secretary of Law Ministry, said, since the prorogation order has yet to be read out the sitting should continue as the prorogation order carries the date of 14th April and 14th April ends at midnight tonight.

Speaker Yusuf Raza Gilani observed that he stands by the commitment that the House would be prorogued today but it is upto him when to adjourn it.

Gohar Ayub Khan said, the Opposition decided to withdraw the requisition because it felt the objectives for which it was requisitioned would not be served because the government appears to be determined to have the Legal Reforms Bill adopted in a hurry whereas in the Opposition's view the bill should be thoroughly discussed as it is full of many flaws as has been admitted by the draftsman of the bill in the report of the standing committee.

Speaker Gilani said that he does not want to bulldoze the bill and want to give ample opportunity to the Opposition to discuss it as it is a very important piece of legislation.

Gohar Ayub Khan said, the Opposition requisitioned the session to discuss four-point agenda. We genuinely feel that the agenda would not discussed. It was our commitment that if our amendments are accommodated, the bill would be adopted in a few minutes. He suggested the via media that the bill should be discussed in the morning session of Monday while the afternoon session allocated to the Opposition's agenda.

At this juncture, the Speaker directed Syed Khurshid Shah to try to come to some agreement with the opposition.

After prolonged discussions between the Opposition and two ministers it was agreed that the current session, as planned, would be prorogued and would be followed by the requisitioned session. Monday would be devoted to the discussion on the Legal Reforms Bill, Tuesday would be private members day when the Opposition's agenda could be discussed on points of order while on Wednesday and if necessary on Thursday, the bill would be adopted after thorough discussion.

With the agreement reached by the two sides on the floor of the House, the Speaker read out the order adjourning the session sine die.

Earlier, during the discussion on the Legal Reforms Bill relating to separate of judiciary and the executive, Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gilani was strongly critical of various provisions of the bill and said, it was in no way a separation as envisaged in the Constitution. The Cr.P.C. was imposed on this country by the British and the executive was given unlimited powers for meeting colonial designs and the bill is not different as the executive has been given unlimited powers. He said the bill, which is one of the most serious pieces of legislation should not be sacrificed at the alter of polarisation. He said the dispensation of justice had become the hand-maiden of the executive during the British regime and the present government is doing the same and through this bill the executive has been given unlimited powers. Judiciary has to be fully and clearly independent of the executive and for this the basic requirement is impartiality as has been stated in the Law Reforms Committee Report of Justice Hamoodur Rahman. He said, the separation as proposed in the bill is not separation but separation of judicial functions, as is evident from the fact that the powers under four chapters of Cr.P.C. have been entrusted to the executive.

He expected that the Law Minister would come out with the announcement that all black laws stand repealed from the country including the Public Order Ordinance.

Quoting the law dictionaries of the world, Syed Iftikhar Hussain informed the House of the meaning of magistracy. The dictionaries, according to him accord the status of Justice of Peace which is equivalent to the 'nambardar' in our country. He said that with this we are backward of 1972. He said, one of most dangerous provisions is the declaration of 'approved' by the District Magistrate at any time although he might be fully involved in a crime. In fact the bill should have made it incumbent upon the magistrate to appear before the Sessions Judge acting on the simple principle that all cases should be put before the judiciary. He emphasised that the ultimate goal of justice can only be met with the total separation of judiciary and the executive. It should be true and undiluted separation. He regretted that the government is not prepared to discuss the bill even for 23 hours although it has taken 23 years to bring this piece of legislation before the House.

Nawabzada Ghazanfar Gul said, he was against the whole idea. The bill is not needed because there is no provision for this in the Constitution and both commonsense and constitutional sense should be exercised. Separation of judiciary is something different and judicial independence is something else. For example the wife and husband can be and are independent but if separate, it means divorce. In our Constitution, executive and judiciary cannot be separated judiciary has always been independent. In the parliamentary system the separation is not viable. Separation of power is not as important as the division of power.

Mian Ejaz Shafi said, undue and unlimited powers has been given to the magistrates, and this contradicts the very purpose of the bill. He said that under Article 25 of the Constitution all citizens are equal before law and require to be given equal treatment of law. Under the bill a set of two categories of magistrates have been created which amounts to denial of equal treatment to the citizens. The bill is an eyewash and it aims at providing control to the executive over the public. The judiciary, which is a watch dog over the executive, must be independent in letter and spirit.