Controversy over women’s release
KARACHI, August 10 2006: Have some elements got undue benefit of the Presidential Ordinance (PO) which was meant for women prisoners involved in minor offences alone? There has been a suggestion that even women convicted of heinous crime have been bailed out. Some senior lawyers have expressed mixed reaction over the release of women prisoners in the light of the PO provisions. They contend that parliament is the only legal forum which can frame fresh laws and amend constitutional provisions.
However, others counter this view, saying there is nothing wrong in the release of women involved in murder cases or of those already tried and convicted. Former Vice-President of Sindh Bar Council (SBC) Noor Naz Agha said: “I don’t agree with the viewpoint of some lawyers that the convicts or those involved in heinous crimes were given benefit of the recently promulgated PO.”
He added that it is the right of everyone to obtain bail. In fact, it’s the discretion of the trial court or the appellate court to grant bail to anyone whose cases are pleaded before them in a justified manner. The PO has done nothing in the case of prisoners who were allegedly involved in major crimes. In most of the cases the women had obtained bail in a legal way and they were not given undue benefit, he added.
Highlighting the role of parliament, she said it was obvious that every law was approved or endorsed or passed by the National Assembly and the Senate, but the President had powers (under the Constitution) to promulgate an Ordinance not contrary to the very spirit of the Constitution, for 90 days. She said the PO recently promulgated by the President of Pakistan was also a part of the same practice and now either the PO would be approved and endorsed by parliament or it would amend it or reject it. Nevertheless, the Constitution has also empowered the President to re-issue the same ordinance after 90 days in case it was not moved in parliament.
Noor Naz Agha said the PO had served the cause of women prisoners involved in minor crimes as they were kept in confinement without any sound legal reason. Besides, it was very clear that women involved in other crimes had obtained bail from the courts concerned. Another senior lawyer and Chairman of World Reforms Commission, Maqbool-ur Rehman, declared that the Ordinance had undermined all the laws in Pakistan and there was no justification to promulgate such an Ordinance that benefited many prisoners who were involved in offences, irrespective of their nature.
Rehman said it was parliament alone that could amend the legal provisions. Replying to a question, Rehman said, “I myself do not subscribe to many legal provisions and sections in Pakistan Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code as there is a lot of repetition in them. They must be made more simple and clear.” Citing an example, he said Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code discusses a certain nature of offence, but its sections and sub-sections just repeat things that sometime confuse lawyers and courts as well.
Source: The News
Date:8/9/2006
” 
” 
” 
” 
” 
