Legal reforms

Once again, what appears to be a genuine effort by the government to improve the deliverance of law and order in the country and revitalise the justice system in order to deliver effective justice to people from all walks of life, has run into massive trouble essentially due to incompetence and a failure to discuss matters with stakeholders. We have seen these problems appear repeatedly and, as a result, destroy efforts that in principle appear to be moves along the right track. However, any step taken can only have meaning if it is properly conducted and backed by all those who have a role to play in the matter.

On Thursday, Prime Minister Imran Khan said that a number of amendments were being made in the criminal justice system in order to improve the deliverance of justice to people. There can be no dispute that the justice system needs reform and the speed at which cases are heard accelerated as well as other measures taken to make the law more effective and more accessible to everyone, regardless of their status and wealth. The reforms in the Criminal Procedure Code, the Pakistan Penal Code, and other aspects of the law include an independent Prosecution Service, the setting up of a forensic laboratory, the audio recording of cases as well as their video recording with victims of sensitive crime not having to appear in court if they chose not to do so and a reform in the prison system. On paper, all this seems positive and could go a long way in fixing Pakistan's badly warped justice system. However, as the government should now have recognised after three and a half years in power, it is always wise to discuss matters through with all those involved in any matter, before passing laws or making sweeping announcements of change. Such change can have various effects and it is essential that all stakeholders be taken aboard.

In a response to the government's measures, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association Ahsan Bhoon has said that Law Minister Farogh Naseem failed to consult legal bodies such as the bar associations before making these changes. The changes are so massive that they would need to be studied in detail to understand what impact they would have in actual practice, in courts, and at all levels, ranging from the lowest tier of the court system to higher courts. While the SCBA claims that the bar associations were not consulted, Farogh Naseem insists that they were asked, and their silence was taken as an approval of the measures proposed by the government. Surely it would not have been difficult for someone in the law ministry to consult the president of the SCBA, the Pakistan Bar Council and other major bodies, as well as leading lawyers in order to discuss the reforms, their impact, their feasibility, and then reach a decision before announcing such a large volume of change to the people resulting in a negative reaction from the SCBA and the other bar associations, some of which say they were never asked about the matter in the first place and stakeholders were not taken into confidence about the changes announced.