PAKISTAN: Five questions for Aitzaz Ahsan, leader of the lawyers' movement

This morning, Aitzaz Ahsan, the President of the Pakistan Supreme Court Bar Association and the leader of Pakistan’s “lawyers’ movement,” spoke to a large audience at the New York City Bar Association about the lawyers’ movement, the importance of an independent judiciary, and the role of U.S. policy in Pakistan’s judicial crisis. During the past year, the New York City Bar has played an active role in support of Pakistan’s lawyers and judges — organizing a solidarity rally with other area bar associations after Gen. Pervez Musharraf imposed “emergency” rule in November, issuing a statement strongly urging Musharraf to restore the rule of law, and awarding an honorary membership, one of the organization's highest honors, to Pakistan Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.

In his remarks, Ahsan thanked U.S. lawyers and bar associations for their “unstinting support for constitutionalism, rule of law, and reinstatement of an independent judiciary in Pakistan.” He said that last November’s rally — which drew hundreds of New York lawyers to the steps of the courthouse in lower Manhattan — “was an unprecedented collective action, and it was noticed throughout Pakistan.” Ahsan expressed his view that “what has endeared the people of America to the people of Pakistan, despite the adversarial policies of the American administration, has been the support of the bar associations.”

Following his address at the New York City Bar, Ahsan briefly talked to SAJAforum about the lawyers’ movement, the prospects for reinstatement of the judges ousted by Musharraf, and the role of Pakistan’s media:

Q: There’s been much speculation about what caused General Musharraf to try to dismiss the Chief Justice of Pakistan back in March 2007. What do you think caused him to take that step?

A: I think that Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz poisoned Musharraf’s ears after the Steel Mills Case, which was a judgment that was an indictment of the Prime Minister. After the Supreme Court decided that case, people started saying — including myself in speeches in the National Assembly — that the Prime Minister could be indicted, and ought to be indicted. So there is some evidence of the fact that Shaukat Aziz began to advise Musharraf to fire the Chief Justice, and played on his fear that the Chief Justice was going to decide against him in his bid to be the President for another term. So I think it was mainly this, a paranoia that was created in Musharraf’s mind by Shaukat Aziz.

Q: In the past, most Supreme Court justices in Pakistan have cooperated with military coup leaders and even have sought to legitimize military takeovers in their judicial decisions. What do you think has made this moment different and caused so many judges to react differently this time?

A: I think it was the inspiration that they got — that everyone got, that the entire country got — from the refusal on the 9th of March [2007] by the Chief Justice to surrender his discretion or to succumb to the pressure exerted upon him by five generals. I think that was the most inspirational moment in this entire movement. And that had kind of a carryover momentum which inspired more judges on the 3rd of November to refuse to capitulate [when Musharraf imposed “emergency” rule].

The lawyers’ movement in Pakistan is unprecedented. In South Asian history, there’s never been a movement [of lawyers] like this, sustained over 16 months now, more than a year.  And for both lawyers and judges, it's been the inspiration provided by one individual that has made it happen. As Chairman Mao Zedong said, a single spark can set an entire prairie on fire.

Q: What is your impression of the response to the lawyers’ movement by lawyers, bar associations, and civil society in India? Has it been like the response by lawyers and bar associations here in the United States?

A: I think it has been insignificant. I don’t know why, but it has been quite insignificant.

Q: Publicly and officially, the Bush administration has been largely silent about the issues surrounding Pakistan’s judiciary, typically stating that it regards those issues an “internal matter.” But there also have been reports indicating that some administration officials may have an affirmative desire to keep the Chief Justice and the other judges removed by Musharraf from being reinstated. What is your sense of what the Bush administration’s actual position is on these issues?

A: I have a sense that the American administration would like the judges not to be restored. Although I believe this position was originally intended not to embarrass Pervez Musharraf, I think that now that position has solidified, and that Pervez Musharraf himself is not as relevant as the fear of these independent judges. Even the Americans seem to believe that independent judges may not be good for their interests in Pakistan — which is a convoluted logic, which is absolutely illogical, but I think that they now believe as much.

Q: The media in Pakistan has played a powerful role in covering the events of the past year. Ironically, Musharraf has rather successfully conveyed the impression that he has actually been the one responsible for opening up Pakistan’s media. What is your reaction to that?

A: Well, first of all, the media has played a very significant and important role. Second, the gift of free media is not Musharraf’s gift. It is technology. There is no way you can keep the free media out. If you keep the free media out, there will be satellite channels and other channels that people will begin to watch. So it’s not out of any love for free media. It’s out of the fact that there cannot now, in this day and age, be a blackout of the media. So if things will be watched by the people on other channels anyway — from Indian channels, for instance — it’s safer for the government to have Pakistani channels and to be able to influence those channels. And the government still does influence the Pakistani channels. They knock out programs that are critical, as has happened recently on Geo Television.

UPDATE: Streaming video of Ahsan's speech to the New York City Bar is available here.  The previous evening, Ahsan appeared on the Charlie Rose show, along with Mark Mazzetti and David Rohde of the New York Times, and that video is available here.  More press reports covering Ahsan's visit:

• NY Law Journal: At City Bar, Pakistani Lawyer Blasts U.S. Over "Silence" on Ousted Judges
• Rediff: 'Now we have democracy, but no peace'
• Epoch Times: Pakistan Human Rights Lawyer Visits NYC Bar Association
  
• WSJ: Pakistani Lawyer Calls Courts Best Weapon Against Terror
  
• NY Sun: Pakistan Revolt Leader Scores Bush
  

Post your comments below.

Comments

[Anjum Altaf]

A legitimate question to ask Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan pertains to the fact that he is a member of the Peoples Party and the Peoples Party is proving to be the main hurdle in the restoration of the judiciary. What is Mr. Ahsan's long-term vision and short-term game plan? How does he intend to leverage his membership in the party to achieve the desired objective.

http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com

[Theodore G. Fletcher]

The Bush Administration is not thrilled by the independent judiciary in this country either.