Home / News / Urgent Appeals / PAKISTAN: Military ignores tribunal's decision
 

PAKISTAN: Military ignores tribunal's decision

January 19, 2009

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAM

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-003-2009



19 January 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PAKISTAN: Military ignores tribunal's decision

ISSUES: Administration of justice
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information regarding a case where the military officials are continuing to ignore a court order. The decision made by the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) concerning the employment of two peasants, formerly employed by the military, is yet to be complied with.

CASE DETAILS:

Mr. James Masih and Mr. Ghani Masih worked as dry stock attendants at the military farm in Panjnad, Okara district, Punjab province. They were fired by the military authorities (through an order dated April 29, 2004), on the charge of being the brothers of Mr. Younus Iqbal Masih. Masih is the chief of The Anjuman Mazaraeen Okara (The Peasant Association of Okara), a rights organisation that fights against the continued efforts of the Pakistan military to change their title of 'tenant', to that of 'contractual labourer'.

At the beginning of the retrenchment process, military authorities (in a charge sheet dated 10 December 2002) claimed that the men's performance and standards of discipline weren't up to the required standard, and they were involved in undesirable activities. However at the end of the inquiry when the two were fired, it was put down to the fact that both men were still "enjoying good relations with (their) brother" and thus helping him in his "subversive activities."

The brothers took their case to the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, which challenged the military with an impugn judgment (the verdict for one person applying to the other defendants in the case), and ordered them through the federal secretary of the defense ministry, to conduct a new, coherent inquiry. In the next charge sheet (February 13, 2004) the military authorities claimed that the brother in question "was engaged in subversive activities and (his) retention in service is prejudicial to national security. So, (he is) liable to be dismissed from service."

After the victim submitted his reply, another inquiry was set in motion by the military authorities, led by Dr. Muhammad Amer Ayub, a veterinary officer. The vet concluded that the man had actively supported his brother Younus Masih and other tenants in their uprising against military farms management. They were dismissed from December 31, 2003.

The appellant filed his departmental appeal (May 13 2004) before the assistant director of headquarters at the military farm, but no decision came back to him. He then filed an instant appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal on July 28, 2004.

On November 6, 2008, the Federal Services Tribunal ruled that the firing of the man was illegal and that he should be reinstated, with the period since his dismissal treated and paid for as leave. The tribunal observed that: "we feel that (an) appellant should not be penalised for his hardship with his brother and father, and should not be made to pay for (their) sins." Being an impugned judgment, the decision applies to all 32 persons who were retrenched by the military authorities during the 2001 movement of the peasants of military farms.

The military authorities and Ministry of Defense have refused to follow the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal, which is binding for every official ministry and departments. The victims remain jobless and are still barred from entering their former homes at the farm.

The military officials need to be taken to task and reminded of their role in the country. The brothers must be immediately returned to their jobs and homes, and compensated for the wages lost so far. The military officers also clearly need to be given something useful to do; it is unlikely that such activities can be held up as a worthy use of Pakistan's defense budget.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The Punjab (Provincial) Board of Revenue has leased out large tracts of agricultural land, tilled by tenants and their forefathers for over 80 years, to military farms and other organisations like the Punjab Seed Corporation. The leases have already expired, but instead of vacating the land, the military have publicly claimed ownership of it. The military authorities have been pressing the Board of Revenue to transfer the ownership of these lands from the peasants to the military. Their latest move – the request of a permanent land transfer of over 20,000 acres in Okara and Lahore by the Ministry of Defense in February 1, 2000 – occurred just three months after the Musharraf coup. Nevertheless, the board refused (in a letter dated April 13, 2001).

In June 2000 the administration of Okara's military farms--the largest of the many state farms spreads over 17,000 acres--told the tenants that they would no longer be considered as tenants but instead would have to sign limited-year contracts on their own land. They were told to pay cash rent to military authorities instead of the usual harvest shares. The tenants refused because they knew that while tenancy laws protected them from eviction, their jobs would not be safe as contract workers. The contract in question banned the personal use of trees and soil of the land, bound contractors' loyalty and obedience to the military officers and made the contractor responsible for preventing crimes. The slightest breach of the contract would lead to its cancellation. As the situation has grown more polarised, officers have begun demanding the outright ownership of the land.

The total area under lease to military farms in various districts of Punjab amounts to 166,204 acres and the military argument, that the area is close to the border, only applies to 1,450 acres in the district of Kasur. In fact, like other exclusive defense housing societies found in major cities, these military farms have nothing to do with the defense of the country.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write a letter to the government authorities below, demanding the re-instatement of the two peasants at the military farm in Panjdnad, Okara, with back benefits from the day they were unjustly fired.

To support this appeal, please click here:

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear ______________,

PAKISTAN: Military ignores tribunal's decision

Name of victims:
1. Mr. James Masih; dry stock attendant at Military Farm Panjnad, Okara district, Punjab province
2. Mr. Ghani Masih; dry stock attendant at Military Farm Panjnad, Okara district, Punjab province
Name of relevant officials:
1. Major Imran, Departmental Representative, Headquarters Military Farm, Oakara, Punjab, Pakistan
2. Secretary, Ministry of Defense, Pak Secretariat No2, Rawalpindi, Punjab, Pakistan

I am distressed to note that independent land workers in military farms across Pakistan are becoming the subject of harassment by the military, in a bid to take over the farms for themselves. One recent case, that of James Masih and his brother Ghani Masih, is a good example of the illegal, arbitrary nature of military action in this matter. The lack of respect shown to the Federal Service Tribunal by military offices is also a worrying, embarrassing matter for the country.

Mr. James Masih and Ghani Masih were fired by the military authorities through an order dated April 29, 2004. The initial inquiry labeled the brothers of a low disciplinary standard, involved in undesirable activities--however the reason for the dismissal was simply that they were on good terms with their brother, Mr. Younus Iqbal Masih. Mr. Masih is the chief of The Anjuman Mazaraeen Okara (The Peasant Association of Okara), a rights organisation that fights against the continued efforts of the Pakistan military to change their title of 'tenant' to that of 'contractual labourer'.

The brothers took the case to the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, which challenged the military with an impugn judgment and ordered them through the federal secretary of the defense ministry, to conduct a new, coherent inquiry. In the next charge sheet (February 13, 2004) the military authorities claimed that the brother in question "was engaged in subversive activities and (his) retention in service is prejudicial to national security. So, (he is) liable to be dismissed from service."

After the victim submitted his reply, another inquiry was set in motion by the military authorities, led by Dr Muhammad Amer Ayub, a veterinary officer. The vet concluded that the man had actively supported his brother Younus Masih and other tenants in their uprising against military farms management. They were dismissed from December 31, 2003.

Despite a departmental appeal (May 13, 2004) filed by the appellant before the assistant director of headquarters at the military farm, no decision came back to him, so he filed an instant appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal on July 28, 2004.

On November 6, 2008, the Federal Services Tribunal, ruled that the firing of the man was illegal, and that he should be reinstated, with the period since his dismissal treated and paid for, as leave. Being an impugned judgment, the decision applies to all 32 persons who were retrenched by the military authorities during the 2001 movement of the peasants of military farms.

The military authorities and ministry of defense have refused to follow the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal, which is binding for every official ministry and department. The victims remain jobless and are still barred from entering their former homes at the farm.

Accordingly, I urge you to take whatever steps in order to address this miscarriage of justice so that the decision by FST is complied with without delay. The failure of addressing this problem will show the international society lawlessness in the country.

Yours sincerely,

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mr. Asif Ali Zardari
President of Pakistan
President's Secretariat
Islamabad
PAKISTAN
Fax: +92 51 922 1422, 4768/ 920 1893 or 1835

2. Mr. Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani
Prime minister
Prime Minister House, Islamabad,
PAKISTAN
Fax: +92 51 922 1596
Tel: +92 51 920 6111
E-mail: webmaster@infopak.gov.pk

3. Mr. Rehman Malik
Advisor for Ministry of Interior
Room No. 404, 4th Floor, R Block,
Pak Secretariat
Islamabad
PAKISTAN
Fax: +92 51 920 2624
Tel: +92 51 921 2026
E-mail: minister@interior.gov.pk

4. Mr. Farooq Naik
Minister of Law, Justice and Human Rights
S Block Pakistan Secretariat
Islamabad
PAKISTAN
Fax: +92 51 920 2628
E-mail: minister@molaw.gov.pk or naelaw786@hotmail.com

5. Mr. Mian Shahbaz Sharif
Chief Minister of Punjab
H-180 Model Town, Lahore
PAKISTAN
Fax: +92 42 5881383

6. Minister of Law Government of Punjab
Punjab Secretariat
Ravi Road
Lahore
PAKISTAN
E-mail: law@punjab.gov.pk

7. Chief Secretary of Government of Punjab
Punjab Secretariat
Lahore
PAKISTAN
Fax: +92 42 7324489
E-mail: chiefsecy@punjab.gov.pk

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
AHRC-UAC-003-2009
Countries :
Issues :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.