The Scope of Public Accountability of the Army and Judiciary in Islamic Republic of Pakistan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53762/alqamar.06.03.e03Keywords:
Public Accountability, Accountability Characteristics, Accountability Mechanisms, Good Governance, Administrative Accountability, Financial Accountability, Judicial Accountability, Conceptual Framework of Accountability, Islamic Republic of PakistanAbstract
Public accountability in any democratic state appears to be the hallmark of the rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution.[i] This process should equally encompass not only the individuals but also the State institutions because it would ensure the presence of the rule of law in the system wherein both shall be treated alike.[ii] The public accountability of the State institutions is necessary because the resources entrusted and the powers vested to these institutions for utilizing such resources being the sacred trust, must not remain unaccountable in the public interest.[iii] The misuse of public resources will not only blur the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the United Nations but will also jeopardize the valuable human rights of the citizens. The processes of accountability prevailing in the two most potent contending State institutions in Pakistan, i.e., the army and the judiciary, were examined to assess whether the forms of public accountability present in such cases are sufficient. This paper explored the significant forms of accountability present in the hierarchy of these two institutions. The army was found vertically and financially accountable, making it a disciplined institution. The case study of the judiciary demonstrates that the applicable forms of accountability fail. The judiciary protects citizens' rights and is directly linked with society. The law-and-order situation in the country is at stake due to the lack of real accountability in this institution. This position has frustrated society and infused a sense of fear, disappointment and insecurity that eventually threatened the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the United Nations.
[i] Holcombe, R. G.,“Checks and Balances: Enforcing Constitutional Constraints”. Economies 6 no. 4(2018): 57.
[ii] The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (1973). Article 25.
[iii] The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (1973). Articles 170 & 171.
References
R. G. Holcombe, "Checks and Balances: Enforcing Constitutional Constraints”. Economies 6 no. 4(2018): 57.
The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (1973). Article 25.
The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (1973). Articles 170 & 171.
Dubnick, M. J., Seeking Salvation for Accountability. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, (2002): 7–9.
N. Luhmann, Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Co-operative Relations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1988), 95-107.
Transparency International, What is Corruption? Transparency International - The Global Coalition against Corruption (Jan. 2023). Retrieved from: https://www.transparency.org/en/what-is-corruption
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,Impact of corruption on specific human rights. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.(January 2023). Retrieved from: https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/anti-corruption/module-7/key-issues/impact-of-corruption-on-specific-human-rights.html
Sinclair, A.,“The Chameleon of Accountability: Forms and Discourses”. Accounting, Organizations and Society 20 no. 2-3 (1995): 219-237. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amanda-Sinclair-2/publication/223860839_The_Chameleon_of_Accountability_Forms_and_Discourses/links/5bb9253292851c7fde2fb728/The-Chameleon-of-Accountability-Forms-and-Discourses.pdf
M. Bovens, “Analyzing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework”. European Law Journal 13 no. 4 (2007): 447-468.
M. Bovens, Public Accountability: Concepts, Forms and Assessment Frameworks. In M. Bovens & T. Schillemans, Eds. Handbook of Public Accountability (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 19-34.
R. Mulgan, Holding Power to Account: Accountability in Modern Democracies. Palgrave 2003.
Bovens, “Analyzing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework”. European Law Journal 13 no. 4(2007): 447-468.
Amin Muhammad Bashir Limited v Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance and others. (2015) SCMR 630; Director General FIA v Kamran Iqbal. (2016) SCMR 447; Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v Pakistan. (1972) PLD SC 279.
R. Klein, & P. Day, Accountabilities: Five Public Services (1st ed.) (1987),Tavistock.; Sinclair, A.,“The Chameleon of Accountability: Forms and Discourses”. Accounting, Organizations and Society 20 no. 2/3(1995). Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amanda-Sinclair-2/publication/223860839_The_Chameleon_of_Accountability_Forms_and_Discourses/links/5bb9253292851c7fde2fb728/The-Chameleon-of-Accountability-Forms-and-Discourses.pdf; Bovens, M., “Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework”. European Law Journal 13 no. 4(2007).
M. Bovens & A. Wille, “Indexing watchdog accountability powers: A framework for assessing the accountability capacity of independent oversight institutions”. Regulation and Governance 15 No.3(2021), 856-876, at 857; Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg. (2020). Political Accountability: Vertical, Horizontal, and Diagonal Constraints on Governments. V-Dem Institute, Policy Brief by Emily Walsh. Retrieved from: https://www.v-dem.net/media/publications/pb_22_final.pdf
M. Aleksovska, & T. Schillemans, “Dissecting multiple accountabilities: A problem of multiple forums or conflicting demands?” Public Administration 100 no. 3(2022). Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/padm.12763; Khotami, M. R.,“The Concept of Accountability in Good Governance”. Advances in Social Science, Education, and Humanities Research - Atlantis Press (Now part of Springer Nature) 163 no. 1(2017): 30-33.
Mulgan, R., “Accountability: An Ever‐Expanding Concept?”Public Administration 78 no. 3(2000) 555‐573; Thomas Schillemans, “Calibrating public sector accountability: Translating experimental findings to public sector accountability”. Public Management Review 18 No.9(2016): 1400–1420. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1112423; Yang, K.,“Further understanding accountability in public organizations: Actionable knowledge and the structure–agency duality”. Administration & Society 44 no. 3(2012): 255–284. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399711417699
Stephens, B., Briefing Paper: Right to Effective Remedies. ESCR-Net/FIDH - Joint Treaty Initiative (January, 2023). Retrieved from: https://www.google.com/search?q=mechanisms+versus+remedies+in+law+&sxsrf=APwXEddKayPxxBMhz9i9Xs32ezgIoXPwow%3A1687691779092&source=hp&ei=AyKYZLy-A_SnkdUP3Iax6AY&iflsig=AOEireoAAAAAZJgwE0FgdutrL3gvFlIaFmeRqP7WadhQ&ved=0ahUKEwj8y-znpd7_AhX0U6QEHVxDDG0Q4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=mechanisms+versus+remedies+in+law+&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiJtZWNoYW5pc21zIHZlcnN1cyByZW1lZGllcyBpbiBsYXcgMgQQIxgnSLpkUABY1GJwAXgAkAEAmAHLA6ABql-qAQkyLTE5LjE5LjK4AQPIAQD4AQGoAgrCAggQABiKBRiRAsICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEC4YigUYsQMYgwHCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICBRAAGIAEwgIIEAAYgAQYsQPCAhMQLhiKBRixAxiDARjHARjRAxhDwgILEAAYigUYsQMYgwHCAggQLhixAxiABMICDhAuGK8BGMcBGLEDGIAEwgIHEAAYigUYQ8ICBxAAGIAEGArCAgcQLhiABBgKwgIKEAAYgAQYsQMYCsICDRAuGIAEGMcBGK8BGArCAgcQIxixAhgnwgIHECMYsAIYJ8ICBxAAGA0YgATCAgcQIxjqAhgnwgIGEAAYBxgewgIMEC4YBxgeGMcBGNEDwgIHEC4YigUYQ8ICCBAAGAgYHhgKwgIGEAAYCBgewgIIEAAYigUYhgM&sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1
M. Bovens, The Concept of Public Accountability. In E. Ferlie, L. Lynn, & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 182.
G. J. Brandsma, & T. Schillemans, “The Accountability Cube: Measuring Accountability”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23 no. 4(2013): 953-975.
Bovens, Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism”. West European Politics 33 no. 5(2010): 946-967.
Mulgan, R.,Holding Power to Account: Accountability in Modern Democracies. Palgrave (2003).
Bovens, “Analyzing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework”. European Law Journal 13 no. 4(2007): 447-468, at 453
Luhmann, Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Co-operative Relations, 95-107.
A. Eriksen, “Accountability and the Multidimensional Mandate”. Political Research Quarterly (2020). Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920906880
Bovens, “Analyzing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework”. European Law Journal 13 no. 4(2007): 447-468.
Mechanism Definition. Law Insider. Retrieved March 10, 2023, from https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/mechanism
M. D. McCubbins & others, “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control”. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3 No.2(1987): 249; Strøm, K., Parliamentary Democracy, Agency Problems, and Party Politics. In D. Giannetti & K. Benoit (Eds.), Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Governments (pp. 63). Routledge (2003); Schedler, A., Restraining the State: Conflicts and Agents of Accountability. In A. Schedler & others (Eds.), The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies (pp. 18-19). Lynne Rienner Publishers (1999).
M. Warren, Accountability and Democracy. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 39-54.
A. Przeworski, S. C. Stokes, & B. Manin, Democracy, Accountability, and Representation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
M. Warren, Accountability and Democracy. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 39-54.
The Pakistan Army Act (XXXIX) of 1952.
The Pakistan Army Act (XXXIX) of 1952, Section 16.
The Pakistan Army Act (XXXIX) of 1952, Chapter IA, Sections 8A to 8C.
The Pakistan Army Act (XXXIX) of 1952, Section 16.
The Pakistan Army Act (XXXIX) of 1952, Section 17(1).
The Pakistan Army Act (XXXIX) of 1952, Chapter-V.
April 2016.
The Pakistan Army Act (XXXIX) of 1952, Section 42.
Guidelines for the Audit of Defence Services used by the Directorate General Audit (Defence Services), Guiding Rule 3.1.
Guidelines for the Audit of Defence Services used by the Directorate General Audit (Defence Services), Guiding Rule 4.11.
Guidelines for the Audit of Defence Services used by the Directorate General Audit (Defence Services), Guiding Rule 2.1.
Montesquieu, B. (1748). De L’Espirit des Lois.
Dicey, A. V.,“Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution”. Liberty Fund (1982): 110-115.
H. W. R. Wade & Forsyth, C. F. Administrative Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 15; The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (1973). Article 175.
S. B. Burbank, “What Do We Mean by Judicial Independence?” Ohio State Law Journal 64 (2003): 323-339.
The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (1973). Articles 4 and 8.
S. Voigt, “The Economic Effects of Judicial Accountability: Cross Country Evidence”. European Journal of Economics 25 (2008): 95-123.
The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (1973). Article 175.
Article 175-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
See Article 175-A (8) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, Articles 175-A (12) & (13).
Subject to the conditions prescribed by Article 209(5) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (1973). Article 211.
Pakistan Legal Decisions (2018) Supreme Court at Page 538.
Pakistan Legal Decisions (2010) Supreme Court at Page 61.
Pakistan Legal Decisions (2021) Supreme Court at Page 1.
Justice Qazi Faez Isa v The President of Pakistan (2021) PLD 1 Supreme Court (Pak); Federation of Pakistan v Ghulam Mustafa Khar (1989) PLD 26 Supreme Court (Pak); Fauji Foundation v Shamim-ur-Rehman (1983) PLD 457 Supreme Court (Pak); Federation of Pakistan v Saeed Ahmad Khan (1974) PLD 151 Supreme Court (Pak)
The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (1973). Articles 189 and 201.
Muhammad Azhar Siddique v Federation of Pakistan, 2012 PLD 774 (Supreme Court of Pakistan).
Suo Motu Case No.4 of 2010 reported as (2012) Pakistan Legal Decisions 553 Supreme Court (Pak).
Talal Chaudhry’s case (2019) Supreme Court Monthly Review 542 (Pak).
Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings reported at (2018) Pakistan Legal Decisions 738 Supreme Court (Pak).
Muhammad Hamza Shahbaz Sharif v Federation of Pakistan and another reported at (2022) Pakistan Legal Decisions 504 Lahore (Pak).
PLD 2014 Supreme Court 241.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2023 Al-Qamar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
