PESHAWAR: The Supreme Court Bar Association President, Asma Jehangir, has called upon the government to implement the judgments of the Supreme Court otherwise the country would head towards lawlessness.

“I believe that when Supreme Court gives a decision, right or wrong, and if the government is not implementing it, we are heading towards anarchy and lawlessness,” said Ms Jehangir while addressing the members of Peshawar High Court Bar Association here on Friday.

Ms Jehangir visited Peshawar on the invitation of Malagary Wakeelan, affiliated with the Awami National party and was accompanied by member of Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) from Sindh, Yaseen Azad, who is the presidential candidate in the forthcoming SCBA election.

The meeting was also addressed by PBC vice-chairman Abdul Lateef Afridi, Yaseen Azad and SCBA vice-president Arif Khan.

She claimed that a day earlier a representative of the government met her and briefed her about the government's point of view, but she told him in clear terms that if they had reservations over any order of the court, they should raise it before the court instead of making hue and cry outside.

“This is not the way that you remain silent before the bench and start airing objections outside,” Ms Jehangir said, adding they issued a notification before the bench and outside the concerned secretary was made a scapegoat and was suspended.

She added that their association had also passed a resolution in that regard and hoped that the government would follow the aspirations of the bar associations.

Ms Jehangir stated that if the judiciary delivered any wrong judgment, the government had the option to go into review and if that was not possible today, the judgment could be reviewed in future like the famous Dosso case which was reviewed by the Supreme Court in the Asma Jillani case.

The controversy between the government and the judiciary had been deviating attention of lawyers from other issues most important of which was the recent promulgation of the two regulations -- Action in Aid of Civil Power Regulation 2011 for Fata and Pata.

Ms Jehangir condemned these regulations stating that they would not allow the security apparatus to pick up people and keep them in detention for several years without production before any court of law.

She added that the most ridiculous section in those regulations was about the evidence of army officers, which stated that their evidence would be enough for conviction of a suspect.

“If we consider their evidence, then we will believe that Pakistan was never broken and that all the people of East Pakistan were our enemies.” Instead of introducing such oppressive laws, she demanded that reforms should be introduced in Fata including amendments in the FCR and extension of the Political Parties Order there.

While making a scathing attack on the apex court, she stated that she had reservations over the judgment delivered in the appointment of judges' case through which the role of Parliamentary Committee was ended in appointment of judges to the superior judiciary.

“That judgment has given credence to the impression that the Supreme Court doesn't believe in sovereignty of the parliament,” she said adding that she also did not agree with that judgment, but had to follow it. She hailed Justice Tariq Pervez for his dissenting note in the said judgment adding that in history that dissenting note would be remembered.

Ms Jahangir also criticised the recent appointment of judges to the superior courts including the Peshawar High Court stating that merit was not followed as one of the appointed judges had never even paid income tax, whereas another had paid only Rs2,000 tax.

She added that the courts had been functioning on half strength and those half serving judges were half qualified.

About the lawyers' movement, she stated that it was neither the first movement nor it would be the last one. She added that they were part of the movement, but it was aimed at independence of the judiciary and not for any individual.

“We are not foot-soldiers of judges. We are honourable lawyers and not B-team of any judge,” she said. The independence of judiciary meant independence of all judges and not independence of an individual judge.