Justice ® Ali Nawaz  Chowhan

Our quest for good governance is still a dream. There is lot of political rhetoric in favor of good governance and the rule of law since day one of the creation of Pakistan. The Quaid valued Human Rights, Dignity of men, freedom of beliefs and practice of cultures as essential part of the state.

According to the Quaid the civil servants were the servants of the state and not their masters. They had to implement the policy framed by the representative of the people. Ironically the greatest numbers of complaints arise from mal administration attributed to bureaucracy. Bureaucracy has always been strong because of its network and the general incompetency of the political leadership who are supposed to govern them. Corruption is another aspect in which we find connivance of the leadership and the bureaucracy and this makes the bureaucracy uncontrollable and systems corrupt.

The prime minister of Pakistan also has grievance against prevailing  mal administration but it seems that he has no clue to  amelioration  the malady.

The complaint receiving process arising out of common grievances of the people caught the attention of the military ruler who taking inspiration from the Swedish ombudsman introduced PO one of 1983. The objective and attributes of the ombudsman were formulated as follow.

–              To right individual wrongs

–              To make bureaucracy more humane

–              To lessen popular alienation from government

–              To prevent abuses by acting as a ‘bureaucratic watch-dog’

–              To vindicate civil servant when unjustly accused.

In its report of 1985 the objective for establishment of the ombudsman were stated as follow.

“The raison d’etre for setting up the institution of the wafaqi mohtasib was to institutionalize a new mechanism for readdressing injustice done to citizens by public functionaries at the federal level. It was sought to set up a system which combines judicial impartiality, adequate investigate capability, pragmatic flexibility in its procedures and professional insight into the labyrinth of the modern administrative structure.”

The main attribute envisaged is that the institution will be external to administration.

The ombudsman was given extensive powers and it was said:

“For carrying out the objective of this order and, in particular for ascertaining the root causes of corrupt practices and injustice, the Mohtasib may arrange for studies to be made or research  to be conducted and may recommend appropriate steps for the eradication”

Mal administration and bad governance is the order of the day. We are still looking for forensic reports on the eradication of mal practices and corruption. Besides the federal ombudsman there are ombudsmen in the provinces, The institutions are ubiquitous and yet as is said “water water everywhere but not a drop to drink”.

The first wrong which was done by military dictator was removing was to de list the ministry of defense and the cantonment boards rampant with mal administration and corruption from the preview of the federal ombudsman. As it noticed the main engagement of the ombudsman is in day to day complaints whereas the need is to change the system.

I had the opportunity of being an observer in the office of the ombudsman of Sweden as well as the ombudsman of Ontario. It is amazing to see how these institutions have been catalys in making their system humane. A two line letter from the ombudsman of Sweden to anyone including the army creates a chill, this does happen here.

In the United States there is lot of respect for the rule of law. They have addition to other forums the administrative law judges (ALJ) system created by Mr Roosveld. I have studied this system while at Columbia University, New York and find it a very useful model for Pakistan as it involves adjudicatory rather than recommendatory process as in the case of the Pakistani ombudsman. After initial hearings the grievance passes on from the ALJ to the federal district judge. And so the judicial power comes into the action in resolving the issue affectively. In our case references against the decision of the ombudsman are again reviewed at the office of the president and this causes delay and administrative interference in a judicial order. Having worked as a consultant to the president on administrative law, I had seen the process defeating the purpose.

The other institution for protection and promotion of the human rights came into being in 2015. It remained functional for four years. Myself being the first chairman the commission published 34 investigative reports, over 4000 complaints, and many legislative drafts introduced Pakistan as a civilized society internationally, helped the government in achieving the benefits of GSP+. It helped the vulnerable segments of the society, the transgender, the minorities; those subjected to violence, and enforced disappearances. It advocated respect for human rights and rule of law. This institution was made dysfunctional and according to the report of Daily Dawn dated (29th October, 2020 “The Govt deliberately keeping HR bodies dysfunctional: Senate Body”) The National Commission for human rights Act 2012 protects the fundamental rights of the people and all rights granted by civil and political rights of the convention of the united nations 1966 and civil and economic rights of the people 1966. Besides, the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. So this law gave assurance for the rule of law and justice to the common man which is now being denied as such and this is unfortunate.

The NCHR was created but purposely no rules were framed and budgetary problems were created so that the institution failed. Anyway because of the urge and passion of the civil society it succeeded which the institution faced but yet it succeeded.

As the NCHR also performed judicial functions therefore the law enjoins that the chairman should be a person who is being a judge. Unfortunately this requirement is being sabotage.

Even for the ombudsman to be independent of administration the requirement is of a judge trained judicially and not somebody chosen from bureaucracy whose complaints he has to hear. So we made a mess of the concept of governance and administration. Someone has to take corrective measures.

Justice (r) Ali Nawaz Chowhan

Chairman,

National Commission  for Human Rights,

Government of Pakistan.

Formerly: Chief Justice Of The Gambia

International Judge Of The UN at The Hague.

Co-Chairman, UNESCO Appeal Board-Paris, France.

Dr M Ali Hamza

When reporting to the Roman Senate on his extremely successful military campaign against Pharnaces II, king of Pontus in 47 BC, Julius Caesar summed up the campaign by stating veni, vidi, vici, which translates as, I came, I saw, I conquered. In a same fashion the Caesarish captain, Prime Minister Imran Khan: he appeared, he spoke and he conquered our hearts by his speech in 75^th session of the UN general assembly (UNGA 75). The content of speech was not only of global importance but the sequence of issues was meticulously selected: suitable selection is a must in certain catastrophic conditions.

The renowned intellectual Noam Chomsky contends that western neoliberalism has a dark side that impoverishes poor and developingcountries. Elite in these counties welcome the western neoliberal agenda even though the poor of their country suffers the most from the implementation of neoliberal economic policy, but a tiny community of money-grubbers is always found persistent to follow western agenda because such an agenda works for them: thoughin fact they are just puppets and not amajor player in the game. PM Imran Khan has rightly pointed out once again the need to establish a stronger legislation and then enforcement systems by the western world to discourage reception of plundered money. In the pages of history: not long ago, colonialism looted the treasure forcefully from native cultures and now the same western propellers cultivated the local burglars who rob taxpayers money, transfer to western banks, then buy property and run businesses for western economy.Rightly mentioned by Mr. Khan “because they are the beneficiaries, there is a lack of political will in the rich countries to curb this criminal activity”.Do these countries still have any moral grounds to draw and implement FATF policies and rules?

Money laundering is the illegal process of concealing the origins of money obtained illegally by passing it through a complex sequence of banking transfers or commercial transactions. The overall scheme of this process returns the “clean” money to the launderer in an obscure and indirect way.The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimates800bn to 2tn US$ amount of money laundered globally in one year: from poor to rich countries and never transfers back to poor countries rather injects into economic cycle of the western rich countries. The US NGO Global Financial Integrity reports that financial flow from poor countries to rich countries between 2001 to 2010 reached US$ 5.8tn. Repatriation of stolen assets to their country of origin can provide developing countries with additional resources, offering a powerful deterrent as well as justice for the societies whose funds are repatriated. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in her reports admits that the progressin OECD countries in repatriation has been slow. Why is that so? Are western rich developed humanitarian democracies are not willing to pay back what is not theirs?

In a battleship “the cruiser” two political leaders Roosevelt and Churchill drew up the Atlantic Charter.  The charter speaks of fundamental aims of present UNO: to maintain international peace and security; to encourage international cooperation in the spheres of social, economic and cultural developments; to develop friendly relations among nations on principles of equal rights and self- determination; to recognize the fundamental rights of all people. In last 75 years the United Nations apparently kept trying fulfilling the objectives but such fabulous objectives been eroded systematically and now is time for us to reflect whether the United Nations have been able to realize the promise that was collectively made to the people of the world. Prior to UNO, the League of Nations was the first intergovernmental organization that was established after World War 1 in order to try and maintain peace.Unfortunately, the League failed miserably in its intended goal to prevent another world war from happening ratherWW2 broke out only two decades later. The idea was for the League of Nations to prevent wars through disarmament, collective security, and negotiation.Among several integral reasons that finally led to her demise,one was, when countries started to attack others in order to try and expand, the League did not have any power to stop them because there was no regulation or enforcement mechanism. Though UN remedied this flaw by having more institutional strength, but did UN learn to stay impartial as the league was partial to an extent that shedid not allow Germany and USSR to become its member. Has UN ever tried or will ever be able to force western countries to upgrade financial systems and improve legislations in pursuance of returning looted money back to the people it really belongs to and help poor countries to penalize such robbers? As sun shines to all without partiality, so is the role of UN. Partiality is an acid that corrodes the beneficent as well as beneficiary.

The phenomenon of money laundering from the receiving end is unaddressed It will continue to intensify the inequality between the rich and the poor nations, and ultimatelywill spark off a far bigger global crisis than the present migration issue poses. The rich states cannot hold forth on human rights and justice when they provide sanctuary to money launderers’ and their looted wealth. The call by Caesarish captain, Prime Minister Imran Khan  to 75^th session of UNGeneral Assembly to take the lead in efforts to build a global framework to stem the illicit financial flows and ensure speedy repatriation of stolen wealth is,a litmus test for all rich and developed member countries of UNO.