iSLAMABAD: Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) vice chairman Dr Farogh Naseem on Thursday expressed regret over the failure on the part of the federal as well as the Balochistan governments to sanction even a single penny as compensation to the legal heirs of the Aug 8 Quetta carnage.

However, majority of the 23-member council, baring a few, raised a contribution of Rs17 million — a cheque of which was handed over to the members of the Balochistan Bar Council for disbursement among the legal heirs of those lawyers who lost their lives in the Quetta attack, said Dr Naseem while talking to journalists at his office inside the Supreme Court building.

“Soon after the Quetta incident, both the governments at the federal and the provincial level had announced compensation for the victims but despite the lapse of so many months, not a single penny had been disbursed,” he lamented.

“Except for the photo sessions by the higher government functionaries, nothing concrete has come out,” he said, adding that even the security around hospitals in Quetta had not been beefed up nor had the health facilities improved.

Earlier, the PBC in a resolution adopted after the incident had declared the terrorist atack as something which had exposed the inefficiency of the federal and provincial governments as well as law enforcement agencies.

Panamagate

Discussing the point of view of another PBC faction which claimed that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with the Panama Papers leaks case, Dr Naseem said the court could proceed with the matter, adding that given the chance the PBC was ready to render valuable assistance to the apex court in the Panama case.

About the supervisory committee constituted by Lahore High Court Chief Justice Mansoor Ali Shah for the accountability of lawyers, Dr Naseem suggested that it be withdrawn in view of the duplication of the exercise, adding that bar councils had never supported lawyers for their misdemeanour.

He highlighted the mechanism for initiating disciplinary actions against displaying boorish behaviour by lawyers both at the PBC level as well as the respective provincial bar councils. He conceded that the delay in early disposal of complaints with which the respective disciplinary committees were seized was due to the preoccupation of the judges of the apex court or the high court heading the respective committees.

The PBC or provincial bar councils did not enjoy any authority to initiate suo motu proceedings against a lawyer unless they received any complaint, explained Dr Naseem. He said the PBC was committed to holding accountability of the members of the legal fraternity.

He emphasised the need for invoking Article 209 so that all references against the judges of the superior judiciary could come to some logical end. “Instead of cherry-picking the references,” he suggested, “all the references against the judges should be decided in a chronological order by the Supreme Judicial Council.”

Published in Dawn November 12th, 2016