HISTORY

ADDRESS BY Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto

Prime Minister Islamic Republic of Pakistan

To Jacobabad and Nasirabad Bar Associations

Jocobabad

Distinguished members of Jacobabad and

Nasirabad Bars;

Assalam-o-Alaikum!

It is a great pleasure to address the Jacobabad District Bar Association. I am no stranger to this Bar and to its honorable members. In fact this Bar gave great strength to the people's movement launched by Quaid-e-Awam against the regime of Ayub Khan and it gave great strength to the struggle launched by Quaid-e-Awam's daughter against General Zia-ul-Haq for human rights and for democracy. Together we fought and faced the forces of tyranny and injustice for the nation. We fought and struggled for the supremacy of the Constitution and for Quaid-e-Azam's vision of a federal, democratic and parliamentary form of government.

So, the association between the Jacobabad Bar and me, which started in 1978, is now almost 20 years old. In this time I have seen the Bar grow in size as more distinguished members have joined practice. I remember correctly when I first addressed the Bar in 1978, there were about 20 members, and I am told that now there are 120 members in Jacobabad Bar. So, I take pride in your growth and in your success.

The Jacobabad Bar and the People's Government have fought to democratization against despotism. We have been against despotism in all its forms, whether it is political despotism, social despotism, judicial despotism or an economic despotism. We have always stood for egalitarianism. We do not believe that a set of people or an institution can become judge and jury at the same time. We believe that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We believe that power cannot be exercised without responsibility, and there cannot be responsibility without accountability. Accountability is the hallmark of an egalitarian order. Accountability is the check on excess. That is why, in our Constitution the Parliament is the supreme body to make laws. Members of Parliament are accountable in the court of the people.

We do not believe that the Judiciary has the right to alter or amend the Constitution, only the right to interpret it. That is why, we opposed the "Doctrine of Necessity". That judgment gave the power to the dictator to amend the Constitution which was totally illegal and unconstitutional and stole from the people of Pakistan the right to amend the Constitution through their elected representatives. Thus, judicial restraint is the hallmark of an independent Judiciary free from political consideration devoted to interpreting the law.

The Supreme Court of the United States evolved the doctrine of judicial restraint when called upon to interpret the New Deal Legislation which is for the welfare of the people. The Supreme Court of the United States consistently displayed a reluctance to enter into political questions.

Every student of Jurisprudence knows that it is for the Legisla­ture to make the law, for the Executive to implement the law, and for the Judiciary to interpret the law. This separation of Power is known as the Rule of Law. If any of these organs is supreme in the parliamentary system, it is the Legislature. The Legislature is the essence of representative democracy. It is the forum where the people rule themselves through their delegates.

In the British Parliamentary System the Lord Chancellor or Chief Justice is changed when a government changes. He even serves as a member of the Cabinet.

The Constitution of Pakistan of 1973 is also based on Parliamentary System. Unfortunately, under the Martial Law regime of General Zia-ul-Haq the Supreme Court used the power to interpret the Constitution to re-write, amend; alter the Constitution as the Rule of Law. This was a great blow to civil society and to the Rule of Law, and it was condemned internally and internationally. Judgments must be consistent to be respected and valued. Unfortunately in the past, judgments were tailored to suit the occasion. When Mr. Junejo was dismissed by the President in 1988, it was declared illegal by the Supreme Court. And two years later when Benazir Bhutto was dismissed by the President in 1990 it was declared legal by the Supreme Court. And three years later when Mr. Nawas Sharif was dismissed by the President, it was declared illegal by the Supreme Court. So, we can see that judgments are shockingly turned on their heads in a very short time and this has not evoked the kind of confidence that is necessary to have an independent Judiciary, per turbulent history.

The nation now expects all its organs and institutions to work according to the Constitution and not to exceed the limits placed by the Constitution on their roles, their obligations, their duties and their responsibilities.

From its birth, Pakistan has sought to reconcile an authoritarian political culture with the plural society. The Supreme Court has oscillated between extreme judicial activism and judicial restraint. The Court has played a legitimizing function using the "Doctrine of Necessity" to legitimate the illegitimate and to condone the powers of the usurper. This sad history of ours commenced on October 23, 1954, when Governor General Ghulam Mohammad issued a proclamation dissolving the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan whose task was to frame the Constitution of Pakistan. Simultaneously, with the proclamation the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, General Mohammad Ayub Khan, was sworn in as the Defence Minister contrary to express provisions of the Constitution. In a historic judgment the dissolution was declared illegal by the then Sindh High Court. However, when the Sindh High Court's judgment- was challenged before the Federal Court of Pakistan, an appeal in the case of Federation of Pakistan Vs Moulvi Tameezuddin Khan, the Federal Court allowed the appeal of the Government. It was allowed on the technical ground that the writ petition was not maintainable, because Section 223-A which conferred the power to issue the writ, had not received the assent of the Governor General. The Federal Court gave this ruling in complete violation of the Constitution and the fact that the Quaid-e-Azam had not accorded assent to amendments in Government of India Act, 1935. Thus, the Federal Court exceeded the limits of the Constitution. I might say it subverted the Constitution itself. Till today, this judgment is considered a dark and ugly chapter in our country's history.

This decision paralyzed the administration as a number of constitutional amendments had not received assent. In overcoming the crisis the Federal Court adopted the doctrine of state necessity advanced by the Counsel for the Government. The Court went on to declare that things which are otherwise not lawful can be made lawful through necessity.

In order to resolve the issue the Federal Court authorized the creation of a new Constituent Assembly elected by the Provincial Assemblies on the pattern of the present Senate. This Constituent Assembly enacted the 1956 Constitution. Soon after, the first "Lota Party" or Republican Party or the 'King's Party' emerged on the scene. As a result of the Muslim League's lack of internal discipline and cohesion, its off-shoot, the Republican Party, was but a hand maiden of the bureaucratic military complex.

As many as four Prime Ministers were changed between 1956 and 1958. Thus, a stage was set for military intervention. By the Proclamation of October 7,1958, the President of Pakistan annulled the Constitution of 1956, dismissed the Central and Provincial Cabinets and dissolved the National and Provincial Assemblies. Martial Law was declared throughout the country and General Mohammad Ayub Khan, Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army, was appointed the Chief Martial Law Administrator.

A few days later, Ayub Khan took over as President and sent President Sikandar Mirza into exile.

The Martial Law Proclamation of October 7,1958. was tested in the case of State Vs Dosso. According to Chief Justice Munir, the Constitution of a national legal order may be destroyed by a coup d'etat. If the attempt fails, the sponsors are tried for treason, but if the attempt succeeds, there is nothing like success. So, the coup itself becomes a law creating fact. It is then judged by reference to its own success. Applying this twisted doctrine the Chief Justice, Mr. Munir, and his companion Judges conferred legitimacy on Ayub Khan.

Again they violated the Constitution by amending the law rather than interpreting it. It was another ugly chapter which sowed the seeds of anarchy and chaos. The Constitution of Pakistan of 1962 was promulgated in June of that year by one man, President General Mohammad Ayub Khan. He claimed the mandate to enact the Constitution on the basis of a referendum held on February 14, 1960, and that referendum elected Ayub as President for five years. And you know the referendums are meant to elect the dictators as Presidents.

The Constitution of Pakistan of 1962 divided into twelve parts, represented a radical departure from the Parliamentary form of Government. It imposed a Presidential form of Government with complete separation of powers between the Executive and the Parliament. Under this Constitution, the people of Pakistan were robbed even of their rights to franchise through the ruse of "Basic Democracy". It was the "Basic Democrats" and not the people of Pakistan who elected the President and the members of the Assembly.

In the elections which were held in the winter of 1964-65, the main demand of the then Opposition was that there should be direct elections based on adult franchise. Eventually, a popular movement dethroned Ayub Khan. The Constitution of 1962, a one man Constitution, did not survive Ayub Khan's removal. It was consigned to the debris of history when General Yahya Khan proclaimed Martial Law in March, 1969.

The verdict on the Yahya Khan regime was written by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Asma Jilani's case, but it was written only after Yahya Khan fell from power. Asma Jilani's case is of fundamental importance to Pakistan's jurisprudence. In that case the Supreme Court over-ruled its earlier decision in the case of State vs. Dosso.

Bold though the decision in Asma Jilani's case appears to be, it cannot be forgotten that the Court declared Yahya Khan an usurper only after he was no longer in power.

The Constitution of 1973 is unique. This is the first Constitution that was framed by the elected representatives of the people who were directly elected in fair elections. It was passed unanimously.

This was all the more impressive, considering the deep ideologi­cal differences that existed among the members of the Assembly. The religious parties wanted a Constitution in which Islam would play a dominant role. The majority in the National Assembly consisted of parties that had a socialist orientation. There was a major difference of opinion on the question of the rights of the provinces. The National Awami Party (NAP) and its allies, who were in the majority in the Provincial Assemblies of NWFP and Balochistan, stood for far greater autonomy for the provinces. Thus, the making of the Constitution required major concessions on all sides.

Gentlemen of the Bar, you are familiar with the most sordid chapter in our history when General Zia overthrew the elected government of Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and later subjected his mentor and benefactor to judicial murder.

When Martial Law of 1977 was tested in Begum Nusrat Bhutto's case, the Supreme Court once again applied the nefarious Doctrine of State Necessity, departing from the rule in Asma Jilani's case where this doctrine had been over-ruled.

Thus, the Supreme Court once again legitimized the illegitimate, declared the lawless, lawful and the lawful, lawless.

Pakistan's longest period of Martial Law lasted over nine years, from July 5, 1977 to December 29, 1985. The usurper Zia got himself elected as President by referendum held in December 1984, where barely seven percent of the people voted. Taking a cue from Ayub Khan's elections in 1962, elections to the National and Provincial Assemblies were held on a non-party basis in early 1985.

Again non-party elections were totally illegal and against the clear cut provisions of the Constitution.

This unrepresentative, illegal and unconstitutional Assembly enacted the Eighth Amendment moving the country backward to the Constitution of 1956 which had been the root cause of political instability. The Eighth Amendment permitted the usurper to combine the Office of Chief of Army Staff and President contrary to the provisions of all previous Constitutions that the President could not hold any other office of profit. The Amendment also indemnified all cruel and horrible punishments, and ratified reactionary laws that had been introduced by General Zia.

On November 16, 1988 free and fair party-based elections were held in Pakistan in which the Pakistan People's Party emerged as the single largest party at the Federal level. Once again this was the false spring. Ghulam Ishaq Khan dissolved the Assembly and the Government in purported exercise of power under the Eighth Amendment.

Thus, the contradictions in our judicial history are apparent in the conflict between the judgement of the Supreme Court of Pakistan upholding the dissolution of the National Assembly of August 6, 1990 and restoring the National Assembly dissolved on April 18, 1993. Eight out of the ten Judges who set-aside the Dissolution Order of April 18, 1993 had upheld the dissolution of August 6,1990. On the face of it, the grounds for dissolution on April 18, 1993 were greater as the then Prime Minister in his concluding remarks on television on April 17, 1993 himself acknowledged that the Constitutional Machinery had broken down. So in our country, we talk a lot about the independence of the Judiciary.

However, independence and respect of the Judiciary can only flow when judgments are in accordance with the Constitution and do not exceed it. It can flow when judgments are consistent and do not change with the political climate. It can flow when it is recognized that Parliament alone can amend the Constitution, and no one else.

Those who would like to see laws amended should knock at the doors of Parliament. Political questions are for Parliament. Politicians can go to the Press, the public or the floor of the House to defend themselves and their views.

I would like to mention here that while we have consistently worked for the independence of the Judiciary, those who have been opposed to us have been very consistent in undermining the independence of the Judiciary. I have already referred to some of the judgments that were delivered from the Judiciary, which were politically motivated, which exceeded the Constitutional limits and which of course, tarnished the image of the Judiciary. But even now the Opposition is hell bent on tarnishing the image of the Judiciary. In this context many of you may have heard that the Opposition has launched a campaign to call Judges of the Superior Courts "Jiyalas". It is supposed to politicize the Judiciary and it is an attempt to undermine the Judiciary.

I would like to mention to you, honorable members of the Jacobabad and Nasirabad Bars that you should judge for yourselves. You know the Constitution gives us the power to appoint anybody as Chief Justice. We can appoint some body from the Jacobabad Bar as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of the High Court. But we did not exercise this constitutional power so far, and instead we chose the Chief Justices from the existing lot of Judges.

You know distinguished members of the Bars, that every single Judge of the Supreme Court was nominated. Who is today the Judge of the Supreme Court was nominated after 1977. So, every single member of the Supreme Court has been made a Judge either by General Zia-ul- Haq or by Ghulam Ishaq Khan or by Mr. Nawaz Sharif. So, is it not an irony that they should call the Judges that they have appointed "Jiyalas". These are people they had appointed. But I thought that let us try and strengthen the Constitution, and although the Constitution gives us this power I did not exercise it to take a Chief Justice from the Bench. You know Constitution also gives us the power to take Judges in the Supreme Court from the Bench. So far, we have not exercised that constitutional right. I did not turn around and say that the Judiciary is full of "Payaras", people appointed by Zia-ul-Haq, Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Nawaz Sharif. So, I will not appoint from the Bench, I will appoint from the Bar, because I don't want people who were tarnished by appointments by General Zia, a Martial Law dictator, or by a rigged Prime Minister. I did not do that, because I want to see institutions flourish, and only those who do not want to see institutions flourish, only those who do not want to see democracy flourish, who do not want to see the rule of law flourish, they distort the fact, but I am prepared to challenge them to take on fact. But each person in the Supreme Court of Pakistan has been made a Judge after 1977 either by General Zia-ul-Haq or by Mr. Nawaz Sharif or by Mr. Ghulam Ishaq Khan. So not one of them can be called a "Jiyala". If anything, he can be called a "Payara", but they are not into calling "Jayalas" or "Payaras", because we believe that if a man becomes a Judge he should do above any political consideration and he should work according to his conscience, and he should work according to the Constitution. So, we do not do that. Even in the High Courts the Judges that we have appointed now are junior most Judges, and they will not attain senior most positions until ten to fifteen years are passed by. So, the entire Judiciary so far, whether it is the Supreme Court or the High Courts, is dominated largely by people who were appointed in the long period between 1977 and 1993, and this is a period of almost 20 years.

And you can yourself imagine how much the Judiciary was used as the political lever. That if today for two years we are appointing Judges and those Judges will not attain any important positions for the next ten to fifteen years, already Opposition is making such a hue and cry. But I may say that Opposition is making a hue and cry because they wish to discredit the Judiciary, because the Judiciary is to set in judgments of the cases that the Government has filed against the Opposition. So, I would urge all of you to spread the word amongst the members of your own Bar, and the members of other Bars and tell them to ask the simple question that, is the Opposition's criticism based on reality or the just fiction or fact?

Distinguished members of the Bar!

Many politicians throughout our history have wanted to fire their shots at democratic governments through the shoulders of different institutions. You know that many politicians wanted to fire their shots at the people's government through the shoulders of President Ghulam Ishaq Khan.

At the end of the day, when the President exceeded the powers and dismissed the government in 1990, he was the loser. Rigging of the election was a fore-gone conclusion to keep out the elected repre­sentatives.

So too, when the PNA and foreign powers fired their shots from the shoulders of General Zia-ul-Haq in 1977, he was the big loser in the eyes of history. He will be forever condemned for hanging an elected Prime Minister and imposing a ruthless dictatorship.

When General Zia fired his shots on the shoulders of Chief Justice Anwarul Haq, the Judiciary was the loser and Anwarul Haq was the loser.

When the Judiciary convicted Quaid-e-Awam to satisfy Gen. Zia in the charge of conspiring to murder a man who is still alive, they were the loser.

Political groups have used, in our history, the President, the Armed Forces and the Judiciary to fulfill their own unrepresentative agendas.

In this the losers have been those who fell prey to the machinations of such groups and allowed themselves to be used.

Time passes. Time waits for no-one. The moving finger of history having written, moves on. Life ends and another begins but history lives forever.

Those who live in the pages of history, live forever. Those who blot their copy book are condemned forever. Yazid can never be forgiven.

And, if that is a religion passage, pause to think of Hitler. He can never be forgiven. History is unforgiving.

Then why do men make mistakes? Why do the Zias. the Ishaqs, the Anwarul Haqs make fatal errors? Because they are mortals. They get carried away by temptation. Temptation for power, for pomp, for fame, for fortune. They like to think of themselves as messiahs when in fact they are pawns in the hands of political groups.

Time passes. The concerned political groups are forgotten but their pawns are remembered in the annals of history.

As Shakespeare said: "The evil that men do lives after them." Of course, Shakespeare was a very wise man. So, he knew that women did not do evil.

I remember that Gen. Zia was reluctant and frightened to impose martial law. But he was convinced by the vested political interests that PPP as a part was finished and Quaid-e-Awam could be defeated in Larkana by Pir Pagaro.

We can laugh now and say what a joke. But such was the talk that Zia actually came to believe it and swore at Makkah Shareef that he would hold elections in 90 days.

Of course, he could not hold those elections during his entire life time for fear that Quaid-e-Awam and the PPP would win.

Ghulam Ishaq Khan was also convinced by vested and power hungry people in 1990 that PPP was finished and Benazir would flee the country once her husband was arrested.

With hindsight we can say what a joke. But such is the propaganda, the power of the prophets of doom that they can actually convince quite rational and mature men of their fantasies.

Of course, after 1990,1 did not leave the country, although my husband was arrested, the elections had to be rigged and the country faced political instability.

So, the real wise men are those who do not get carried away by vested political interests, the propaganda of such vested political interests and the whispers of the prophets of doom.

I may say the Holy Book repeatedly warns us to beware of those who slander and to beware of evil whispers.

The real wise men are those who do not seek to make wise decisions because such decisions, being subjective, turn out to be unwise.

The real wise men are those who stick to their constitutional roles through thick and thin, through thunder and storm and thereby win respect in their own time and the time that comes after.

With political stability comes economic stability. With economic stability, comes progress and prosperity.

But political stability does not depend on the government alone.

Political stability depends upon the President, the Parliament, the Judiciary, the Armed Forces, the Provinces, the Opposition and other organs of state fulfilling their constitutional obligations.

If today there is poverty and backwardness in Pakistan, we must blame all those who violated their constitutional oath, exceeded their constitutional duties and power and sought to do what they were not supposed to do. There is a road to success. There is a road to emancipation. There is a road to prosperity.

As democratically elected leader, elected in fair, free and impartial elections, permit me to say that the Pakistan People's Party Government and I symbolize that road.

Just as we symbolize the hopes, the aspirations, the dreams of the downtrodden and discriminated people of Pakistan who have elected us to positions of office. Positions we accepted only because it came from the people.

This is the road which leads to an age of reform. It is the path of enlightenment mirrored in Iqbal's lectures on the Reconstruction of Islamic Thought, in Quaid-e-Azam's speech to the Constituent Assembly of August 11, 1947.

I invite you today to join us in travelling this road on a journey to emancipation, enlightenment and egalitarianism.

I have noted the points that were made by the President of the Bar Mr. Mahr. He has mentioned that the Government should consider setting up Labour, Banking and other Courts in Jacobabad. As you know there are financial implications always involved in such decisions, therefore, I will certainly ask the Provincial Government and the Ministry of Law at the Federal level to examine these proposals made by the Jacobabad Bar.

You have also mentioned that the Jacobabad should not be associated with the Larkana Bench of the Sindh High Court when it is set-up. As you know the Judiciary is now separate from the Executive so in all humility I would request you to take up the demand directly with the Chief Justice of Sindh High Court because it is he who will have to decide under which Bench the Jacobabad Bar Association will fall.

I have noted the points that have been made about housing. I would request the Chief Minister of Sindh to sympathetically examine setting up a Lawyers' Cooperative Society in Jacobabad, so that on a "no-profit, no-loss basis" the lawyers of this Bar may have recourse to plots where they can build their own houses.

I have noted what you have said about the daily air fare from Karachi and Jacobabad, and I will direct the Pakistan International Air Lines, which is an autonomous Corporation, to examine this demand in a sympathetic light. If there is enough traffic between Jacobabad and Karachi, I am sure they will be very happy to solve this issue.

The Chief Minister may have noted your demands about the establishment of Jacobabad Development Authority. I would ask him to examine it and to try and do the needful.

As far as my promise for a by-pass to Jacobabad is concerned, I do no.t break my promises and I will build that by-pass for Jacobabad.

I would like to announce here a grant of rupees five lakhs for the Jacobabad Bar and five lakhs for the Nasirabad Bar Association which is also here.

I have been very pleased to note that there is a lady lawyer here. There was no lady lawyer when I visited you in 1978, although I do believe that Mr. Pecho's wife was at one time a lawyer, although she has now gone on to other task.

I learnt from your President that he has been elected for seven terms. Having myself only two terms, I am very keen to know how he did it.

Thank you very much.

LITERARY REFERENCE IN MEMORY OF MAKHDOOM TALIBUL MAULA Address

Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto

Prime Minister Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Hala

11th January, 1994

Makhdoom Amin Fahim Sahib, Governor Sindh,

Chief Minister Sindh, and Respected guests

SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER MOHTARMA BENAZIR BHUTTO

At Dinner Hosted in honor of Lawyers

Islamabad April 07, 1996.

Ladies and gentlemen!

You are all lawyers. Who knows better than you what it means to submit before the Constitution and never to cross the limits.

The lawyers and the People's Government have fought together against despotism. We have been against despotism in all its forms, whether it is political despotism, social despotism, judicial despotism or economic despotism.

We have always stood for egalitarianism. We do not believe that a set of people or an institution can become judge and jury at the same time.

We believe that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

We believe that power cannot be exercised without responsibility, and there cannot be responsibility without accountability.

That is why, in our Constitution the Parliament is the supreme body to make laws. Members of Parliament are accountable in the court of the people.

We believe that the Judiciary has the right to interpret the Constitution but not to amend it. That is why; we opposed the "Doctrine of Necessity". That judgement gave the power to the dictator to amend the Constitution which was totally illegal and unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of the United States evolved the doctrine of judicial restraint when called upon to interpret the New Deal Legislation, which was for the welfare of the people. The Supreme Court of the United States consistently displayed a reluctance to enter into political questions.

In the British Parliamentary System the Lord Chancellor, as the Chief Justice, is changed when a government changes. He serves in differ­ent capacities including as a member of the Cabinet.

The Constitution of Pakistan of 1973 is also based on parliamentary system. Unfortunately, under the Martial Law regime of General Zia-ul- Haq the Supreme Court used the power to interpret the Constitution to re­write, amend and alter the Constitution thereby undermining the Rule of Law.

This was a great blow to civil society and the Rule of Law, and it was condemned internally as well as internationally.

Judgments must be consistent to be respected and valued. When Mr. Junejo was dismissed by the President in 1988, it was declared illegal by the Supreme Court.

In 1990 the dismissal of the Benazir Government was declared legal. In 1993, the dismissal of the Nawaz Government was declared illegal.

Judgments must be consistent. They cannot be based on a subjec­tive definition of what will "please the people".

Our sad history of playing with the Constitution began on October 23, 1954, when Governor General Ghulam Mohammad issued a procla­mation dissolving the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan whose task was to frame the Constitution of Pakistan. Simultaneously, General Mohammad Ayub Khan, was sworn in as the Defence Minister, contrary to express pro­visions of the Constitution.

In a historic judgement the dissolution was declared illegal by the then Chief Court, Sindh. However, during the appeal in the case of Federation of Pakistan vs. Moulvi Tameezuddin Khan, the decision of Sindh Chief Court was overturned.

The Federal Court gave a free hand to the Governor General who was himself not accountable to the people.

This was the beginning of a slippery path where the Judiciary became instrumental in Constitutional subversion. Till today, this judge­ment is considered a dark and ugly chapter in our country's history.

The Federal Court authorized the creation of a new Constituent Assembly which enacted the Constitution of 1956.

Soon after, the Republican Party or the "King's Party" as it may be called emerged on the scene. It was but a hand maiden of the bureaucratic military complex.

As many as four Prime Ministers changed between 1956 and 1958. Thus, a stage was set for military intervention.

By the Proclamation of October 7, 1958, the President of Pakistan annulled the Constitution of 1956 and dismissed the Central and Provincial Assemblies.

Martial Law was declared throughout the country and General Mohammad Ayub Khan was imposed as the Chief Martial Law Administrator.

A few days later, Ayub Khan took over as President and sent President Iskandar Mirza into exile.

The Martial Law Proclamation of October 7, 1958, was tested in the case of StateVs. Dosso. The stage was set for another judicial blow to the concept of Rule of Law.

Chief Justice Munir held that a coup d'etat can destroy the Constitution and the national legal order.

If the attempt fails, the sponsors are guilty of treason but if it suc­ceeds, it becomes a law creating fact in itself.

Nothing succeeds like success. He equated efficacy with validity as well as legitimacy. The Doctrine of Necessity was invoked to legitimize what was otherwise illegitimate.

The principle of 'might is right' was engrafted onto our Constitutional Jurisprudence.

All the talk about Rule of Law was set aside with one fatal judicial stroke. The destiny of millions of Pakistanis was relegated to a gun-toting usurper.

It was another ugly chapter which sowed the seeds of anarchy and chaos. An individual dictator imposed his Constitution in June 1962. Ayub Khan claimed the mandate to enact the Constitution on the basis of a referendum held in 1960, which elected him as President for five years. And we all know the truth about such referendums.

The Constitution of 1962 imposed a Presidential Form of Government. And what a Constitution it was. At the time of its promulga­tion it contained no fundamental rights. The people of Pakistan were robbed even of their basic rights to franchise through the ruse of "Basic Democracy".

In the elections which were held in the winter of 1964-65, the main demand of the then Opposition was for direct elections based on adult fran­chise. But dictators have little regard for the public opinion.

Eventually, a popular movement dethroned Ayub Khan. The Constitution of 1962 was destroyed by its creator. Such was Ayub Khan's respect for even his own Constitution.

Not surprisingly like other dictatorial fiats it was consigned to the debris of history when General Yahya Khan proclaimed Martial Law in March 1969.

It was only with the restoration of a democratically elected Government that the Supreme Court asserted the role of an independent institution. In the case of Asma Jillani it declared Yahya Khan as usurper, of course after Yahya Khan had fallen from power.

Bold though the decision in Asma Jillani's case was, we cannot forget that it declared Yahya Khan an usurper only when he was no longer in power.

At last, in 1973, the people of Pakistan gave themselves a Constitution which truly reflected their aspirations. It was unique as it was the first Constitution that was framed by the elected representatives of the people who were directly elected in fair elections. It was passed unani­mously.

Ladies and gentlemen!

Alas the forces of despotism could not tolerate democracy for too long. You are familiar with the most sordid chapter in our history when General Zia overthrew the elected government of Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and later subjected his mentor and benefactor to murder.

When Martial Law of 1977 was tested in Begum Nusrat Bhutto's case, the Supreme Court once again resurrected the nefarious Doctrine of Necessity thereby departing from Asma Jillani's case.

Thus, the Supreme Court once again legitimized the illegitimate, declared the lawless, lawful, and handed over the destiny of the people into the hands of a vicious despot.

One man was empowered to subject the Constitution to his demented whims and what a havoc he wreaked to our Constitution.

Pakistan's longest Martial Law lasted over nine years, from July 5, 1977 to December 29, 1985. The usurper Zia got himself elected as President by referendum held in December 1984, where barely seven per­cent of the people voted. Taking a cue from Ayub Khan's elections in 1962, elections to the National and Provincial Assemblies were held on a non­party basis in early 1985.

Again non-party elections were totally illegitimate and against the clear provisions of the Constitution of 1973.

This unrepresentative and unconstitutional Assembly enacted the Eighth Amendment.

The Eighth Amendment permitted the usurper to combine the Office of Chief of Army Staff and President contrary to the provisions of all previous constitutions that the President could not hold any other office of profit.

The Amendment also indemnified all cruel and horrible punish­ments, and ratified reactionary laws that had been introduced by General Zia. Ultimately in August 1988 the Almighty Allah intervened to bring the darkest night of our history to its logical end.

On November 16, 1988 free and fair party-based elections were held in Pakistan in which the Pakistan People's Party emerged as the sin­gle largest party.

As it turned out the remnants of darkness were not prepared to tol­erate the spring of democracy for too long.

Ghulam Ishaq Khan dissolved the Assembly and the Government in purported exercise of power under the Eighth Amendment.

The contradictions in our judicial history are apparent in the con­flict between the Supreme Court judgements upholding the dissolution of the National Assembly in August 1990 while restoring the National Assembly dissolved in 1993.

A majority of the Judges who set aside the dissolution order of April 18, 1993 had upheld the dissolution of August 6, 1990.

On the face of it, the grounds for dissolution on April 18, 1993 were greater as the then Prime Minister in his concluding remarks on tele­vision on April 17, 1993 himself acknowledged that the Constitutional Machinery had broken down.

In our country, we talk a lot about the independence of the Judiciary.

In our country the Judiciary is independent.

It cannot be taken to task by any independent body but only by itself.

No one can question its judgments.

Chief Justices Munir and Anwarul Haq and their fellow Judges could not be questioned for allowing Ayub and Zia, to overthrow the Constitution or the power to amend the Constitution. Although we all know it was illegal.

No one could question why Doctrine of Necessity was legal in the hands of a usurper.

No one could question the Judges who ruled that dissolution of Assembly was legal in one case and illegal in another within a span of three years.

No one could question a Chief Justice who swore a false affidavit to get a plot of land.

No one could ask as to why a Judge who became Chief Minister next day was not held disqualified.

No one could question those in the Judiciary who were allegedly involved in a housing scheme. They decided it themselves.

No Judges resigned when Chief Justice Yaqub was dismissed because he refused to toe Zia's line.

Chief Justice Anwar kept his job because he toed Zia's line for per­sonal gain.

Did Anwarul Haq not refuse short adjournment when Justice Waheeduddin fell ill during the case but the case was adjourned for one week when Anwarul Haq went abroad during the case for a propaganda campaign and declared Shaheed Bhutto guilty while the case was sub- judice.

And when General Zia asked Judges to swear allegiance under the PCO, except for a few exceptions how many refused?

To be independent means to be free.

Our Judiciary is free.

Looking at our convoluted Constitutional history from the fifties, are the people not entitled to wonder as to whether our Judiciary has always been impartial. Each dictator has found a willing Court to legitimize his overthrow of the Constitution.

Many articles have appeared in the press criticizing judicial judg­ments for being violative of the Constitutions as in Doctrine of Necessity cases, or for being based on subjective reasons "pleasing the Nation" rather than enforcing the law or for being biased for personal gains as in the case of Anwarul Haq.

What the Judiciary needs is credibility. It needs a public perception that what it does is devoid of personal likes or dislikes.

The Judiciary must be above criticism and controversy.

And to be so, the Judiciary has to guard its reputation jealously.

If a relative of a judge is appointed to the Court, as many have been in the past, no one has criticized it because the Executive has made the appointment.

But if the appointment was made by the Judiciary, even if the can­didate was deserving, allegations would be made of favoritism and crony­ism.

As the Executive is elected, it is answerable to the people.

And power flows from the people.

Governments come and go. Judges don't. They stay on for as long as 30 years.

In America, a judge may be appointed who is liberal or conserva­tive depending on the Government.

So too in England, the Commonwealth and Pakistan.

I would like to mention here that while we have consistently worked for the independence of the Judiciary, those who have been opposed to us have been very consistent in undermining the independence of the Judiciary. In this context many of you may have heard that the Opposition had launched a campaign to call Judges of the Superior Courts "Jiyalas". Had the Opposition Leader not vowed to throw the Judges out of window if he comes to power again? This venomous campaign was launched to harass the Judges to avoid accountability. It was this attitude which was aimed at undermining the Judiciary.

Distinguished members of the noble profession!

You know that, who is today the Judge of the Supreme Court was nominated after 1977. So, almost all members of the Supreme Court have been made a Judge either by General Zia-ul-Haq or by Ghulam Ishaq Khan or by Mr. Nawaz Sharif.

But we did not turn around and use derogatory language for the Judges appointed by Zia-ul-Haq, Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Nawaz Sharif. We did not do so because we wished to see institutions flourish. The Judges appointed by the present government are junior most Judges, and they will not attain senior positions until ten to fifteen years have passed by. None of them has ever been a party to any legitimization of a dictatorial rule. In fact most of them had fought against it.

The entire Judiciary so far, whether it is the Supreme Court or the High Courts, is dominated largely by people who were appointed in the long period between 1977 and 1993, and this is a period of almost 20 years.

So, I would urge all of you to spread the word amongst the mem­bers of the legal community and tell them to ask the simple question that: Is the Opposition's criticism based on reality or just fiction?

Distinguished lawyers !

Many politicians throughout our history have wanted to fire their shots at democratic governments through the shoulders of different institutions. You know that many politicians wanted to fire their shots at the people's government through the shoulders of President Ghulam Ishaq Khan.

At the end of the day, when the President exceeded the powers and dismissed the government in 1990, he was the loser. Rigging of the elec­tion was fore-gone conclusion to keep out the true representatives of the people.

So too, when the PNA and foreign powers fired their shots from the shoulders of General Zia-ul-Haq in 1977, he was the big loser in the eyes of history. He will be forever condemned for hanging an elected Prime Minister and imposing a ruthless dictatorship.

When General Zia fired his shots on the shoulders of Chief Justice Anwarul Haq, the Judiciary was the loser and Anwarul Haq the man responsible for it.

In our history political groups have used the President, the Armed Forces and the Judiciary to fulfill their own anti-democratic agendas.

In this the losers have been those who fell prey to the machinations of such groups and allowed themselves to be used.

Time passes. Time waits for no-one. The moving finger of history having written moves on. Life ends and another begins but history lives forever.

Those who live in the pages of history, live forever. Those who blot their copy book are condemned forever. Yazid can never be forgiven.

Then why do men make mistakes? Why do the Zia's, the Ishaqs, the Munirs, the Anwarul Haqs make fatal errors? Because they are mortals. They get carried away by temptation.

Temptation for power, for pomp, for fame, for fortune. They like to think of themselves as messiahs when in fact they are pawns in the hands of political groups.

They stand convicted at the bar of history.

It reminds me of the French historian Chateaubriand who said : 'When in the silence of humiliation there is no sound save the clanking of the slave's fetters and the voice of the informer, when everything trembles before the tyrant, and to earn his favour or incur his wrath implies equal danger, then the historians appear to avenge for the people".

In Pakistan, history has ultimately avenged for the people. Where are the dictators or their apologists? Their ashes have been meshed with the dust of history.

Time passes. The concerned political groups are forgotten and their pawns discredited forever.

As Shakespeare said: "The evil that men do lives after them". Of course, Shakespeare was a very wise man. So, he knew that women did not do evil.

I remember that Gen. Zia was reluctant and frightened to impose martial law. But he was convinced by the vested political interests that PPP as a party was finished and Quaid-e-Awam could be defeated in Larkana by Pir Pagaro.

We can laugh now and say what a joke. But such was the talk that Zia actually came to believe it and swore at Makkah Shareef that he would hold elections in 90 days.

Of course, he could not hold those elections during his entire life time for the fear that PPP would win.

Ghulam Ishaq Khan was also convinced by vested and power hun­gry people in 1990 that PPP was finished and Benazir would flee the coun­try once her husband was arrested.

With hindsight we can say what a joke. But such is the propa­ganda, the power of the prophets of doom that they can actually convince quite rational and mature men of their fantasies.

Of course, after 1990,1 did not leave the country, although my hus­band was arrested, the elections had to be rigged and the country faced political instability.

So, the real wise men are those who do not get carried away by vested political interests, the propaganda of such vested political interests and the whispers of the prophets of doom.

I may say the Holy Book repeatedly warns us to beware of those who slander and to beware of evil whispers.

The real wise men are those who do not seek to make wise deci­sions because such decisions, being subjective, turn out to be unwise.

The real wise men are those who stick to their constitutional roles through thick and thin, through thunder and storm and thereby win respect in their own time and the time that comes after.

Distinguished Guests!

Political stability does not depend on the government alone.

Political stability depends upon the President, the Parliament, and the Judiciary, the Armed Forces, the Provinces, the Opposition and other organs of state fulfilling their constitutional obligations.

If today there is poverty and backwardness in Pakistan, we must blame all those who violated their constitutional oath, exceeded their con­stitutional duties and power and sought to do what they were not supposed to do. There is a road to success. There is a road to emancipation. There is a road to prosperity.

As democratically elected leader, elected in fair, free and impar­tial elections, permit me to say that the Pakistan People's Party Government and I symbolize that road.

Just as we symbolize the hopes, the aspirations, the dreams of the down-trodden and discriminated people of Pakistan who have elected us to positions of office. Positions we accepted only because it came from the people.

I invite you today to join us in travelling this road on a journey to emancipation, enlightenment and egalitarianism.

Thank you.

THIRD ECO SUMMIT MEETING INAUGURAL

 Address by

Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto

Prime Minister Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Islamabad

14 March, 1995

Presidents, Prime Ministers and

Foreign Ministers of the ECO Member States,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I thank you for conferring on me the honor of chairing the third ECO Summit meeting. I am confident that with full support from you all, our meeting will make a significant contribution to the progress of our regional cooperation under the aegis of the ECO.

On behalf of the people and the Government of Pakistan, I welcome our distinguished guests to this springtime of political and economic rebirth in Islamabad. May the colors and fragrance of the season be your special welcome from our people, our city and our Nation?

In the tapestry of history, our strong cultural and trading ties, our religious bonds, our mutual goals and objectives have woven us together into a rich communal cloth. Our poetry, our literature, our songs, our dances, our legends reflect the community of our nations, the brotherhood of our people. This common heritage has given us the collective political will, and the modus operandi for further regional cooperation and integration amongst our ten countries.

Excellencies !

The cleansing winds of economic liberalization and free trade are sweeping through the world.

We all stand at the threshold of a rapidly changing post-Cold War order, a post-modern political era of complexity that has replaced the simplistic polarities of the cold and the old East-West confrontation.

Powerful regional organizations for economic cooperation like the European Community, the North Atlantic Free Trade Association, ASEAN and APEC are replacing NATO and the Warsaw Pact as the defining operationalization of the new millennium.

Markets have replaced missiles as the measure of might.

The ten nations of the ECO must take full advantage of the new, worldwide economic trends by maximizing regional economic co­operation.

Our natural resource potential will only be realized when we work together to develop economic competitiveness in the world marketplace.

We need to educate and train our people so that they will have the skills in the modern marketplace, to provide for their children and end the cycle of poverty that plagues us in the developing world.

Together our populations comprise over 300 million people. Together we live on an enormous land mass spanning seven million square kilometers. We are an economic force to be reckoned with in the post-Cold War era. By realizing the full potentialities of our economies, we can, God willing, turn our peoples' hopes into substantive achieve­ments in the emerging economic order.

Excellencies,

Just two years ago, we took the historic decision to enlarge the membership of ECO to include Afghanistan and the six newly independent states of Central Asia and the Caucasus. In these two years, we drew up plans in the Istanbul Declaration and the Quetta Plan of Action for the development of infrastructure in the region. We are exploring joint ventures for trade.

Progress towards the realization of these goals may be slow. But we must make sure they are heading in the right direction — first steps in a long and arduous journey towards closer cooperation.

On the eve of our meeting, Excellencies, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzia and Pakistan made an agreement in Islamabad for the Karakorum Highway which was originally the Silk Route, for trade with the outside world. With this agreement, an era of much contested search for warm waters has been brought to a peaceful denouement.

During our summit meeting, we plan to sign an agreement for facilitating transit trade throughout the ECO region. Our national development plans already reflect the highest priority accorded to the development of infrastructural links within the ECO region.

The People's Government of Pakistan has already allocated Rs. 500 million for upgrading the Karakorum Highway into a modern all-weather road. This road will link us directly to the Kyrghyz Republic through Kyrghizia into Central Asia. In anticipation of the stabilization of Afghanistan, we have drawn up plans for reconstruc­tion of its highway system as well as pre-feasibility for railway link integrating Pakistan's rail network through Afghanistan with that of Central Asia through Afghanistan and Turkmenistan. We are already expanding rail and road links between Iran and Pakistan. Potential also exists for building a road link across the Wakhan border into Tajikistan.

These measures are aimed at providing the shortest outlets to the sea for Central Asian neighbors. Similar measures are underway in Iran and Turkey which will help boost the Southward trade traffic considerably.

Such links also promote people-to-people contacts essential for joint ventures and an early awareness of trading opportunities.

For us in Pakistan, there has been a dramatic increase in the regional aviation links. Regular air services are now available to virtually most ECO capitals. Air travel has become simple and safe.

Unfortunately, prospects for economic development are often being overshadowed by conflict and turbulence. Our region manifests human tragedy - the suffering of the people of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kashmir and Tajikistan. This continuing human tragedy is an avoidable impediment to the process of development, promotion of trade and investment in our region.

The ECO countries need to take a firm stand against terrorism and militancy.

Terrorism and civil war are evil scepters that are threatening the well-being of our hardworking people.

It stands between our region and full integration into the new technology of the new century, the modern miracle of the third millennium.

Pakistan seeks peaceful and cooperative relations with all its neighbors. We are still burdened with the lingering legacy of colonialism, the baggage of the aborted agenda of autonomy, which continues to bedevil our relation with India.

For over five years, an indigenous uprising has erupted in the Indian-occupied Kashmir. It is an intifada for the basic and universal right of self-determination. This struggle for freedom has unfortunately evoked a draconian response from New Delhi, making a mockery of human rights.

Pakistan is a direct party to the Kashmir dispute, as recognized by the United Nations. We have tried, so far unsuccessfully, to convince India to allow the international community to implement Security Council resolutions, guaranteeing the right of the people of Kashmir and Jammu to decide, whether they wish to accede to India or Pakistan. Until the basic right of self-determination is implemented, genuine peace in South Asia will continue to be beyond our grasp.

After a decade long miraculous fight against repression and occupation by the communist superpower, peace still eludes the tragic people of Afghanistan. The continuing fratricide is an on-going cause of concern to all of us. We continue to work with the UN and with the OIC to achieve peaceful reconciliation in Afghanistan.

We fully support the process of bringing about peace and stability in Tajikistan through the good offices of the UN Secretary General. The aggression on Azerbaijan needs to be reversed and is causing sympathy and concern in Islamabad, as elsewhere in the ECO region. All such efforts and measures will, we hope, promote peace and stability in the region.

Our region has been blessed by Allah with an abundance of resources — oil, gas, coal, hydro-electricity, various minerals as well as industrial and agricultural goods.

Our economies must generate adequate investment funds, acquire managerial skills geared to the market economy and, in the case of our new member-states, develop alternative routes of access to world markets.

We have taken some steps to meet these challenges. Pakistan has offered training facilities at our training institutions. We have provided supplier credits to our ECO partners. However, we need to develop a more coherent approach to resolving these problems, including joint efforts to secure capital resources from international institutions and private sectors investors.

I may recall here that the new trading regime under W.T.O. envisages flow of services just like the flow of other commodities. We, therefore, need to focus on the services in our joint deliberations, in our planning for regional integration. Clearly, we are in different stages of development, but we are all undergoing rapid change. There is much we can do individually, and some of that restructuring is difficult, many of our economic decisions are painful. Nevertheless we must proceed with the market agenda of the new millennium, and we can so proceed on the regional integration of our economies. With increased involve­ment of the private sector in development activity, our governments need to redefine regulatory functions, simplifying procedures, we need to provide necessary economic information and generally produce an environment conducive to regional cooperation.

Pakistan fully recognizes the merits of the South-South Cooperation and world-wide regionalization of economies in EC, ASEAN, NAFTA and APEC.

Regional economic development is a necessary prerequisite to peace and stability. Economic development and political development need proceed together. We must never have to choose between the two.

The imperatives of regional cooperation have never been greater than in the rapidly changing environment of today. The establishment of Group of Eminent persons for enhancing the effectiveness of ECO is a very welcome step.

Let me compliment the ECO Ministers and Senior Officials for their contribution at the meetings of the Council of Ministers and Senior Officials. Important decisions were taken then.

We hope that at Islamabad Summit, major agreements on the Simplification of Visa Procedures for the Businessmen of ECO countries, ECO Trade and Development Bank, ECO Shipping Company and ECO AIR will be signed to build an institutional basis for economic collaboration. The Treaty o! Izmir envisages the establishment of Reinsurance Company. We expect to arrive at a decision about the establishment in the near future.

I express our appreciation to the Secretary General of ECO for his dedication and contribution to the work of the Organization.

Following the conclusion of Uruguay Round, global trade has entered a new phase. The ECO countries need to evaluate the implementation of this development with particular reference to the World Trade Organization and the newly liberalized trading environment in which the ECO countries will have to operate and compete.

Excellencies,

Our region is capable of taking a quantum leap into an unchartered future — a future of unlimited opportunity, a future of infinite hope.

We have already enshrined the political will for this extraordinary new era in the Istanbul Declaration and the Quetta Plan of Action.

We now need to mobilize —jointly and individually — financial resources as well as managerial and technical skills to secure timely implementation of our common objectives.

The task before us is surely not easy. But this is a remarkable time of transition and transformation, and the decisions we take now can affect the lives of our people, and the very futures of our nations, as we cross into a new millennium. The times demand innovation, the times demand boldness, the times demand courage.

As it was said long ago,

"The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith."

I thank you, distinguished guests.