Why did Access to Justice Program Fail in Pakistan?

Mukhtar Paras Shah National Graduate Institute of Policy

Studies, Tokyo

Why did Justice Plan fail; Story of an ADB intervention in Pakistan


Mukhtar Paras Shah Page 1

Why did Justice Plan fail?

Story of an ADB intervention

in Pakistan



Dedicated to the people of Pakistan who have recently struggled and

sacrificed to ensure and upheld the independence of judiciary in

Pakistan



This paper was written as part of a research assignment conducted at National Graduate Institute of Policy Studies, Tokyo in Japan.

The document was produced under the supervision of Prof. Ryokichi Hirono who has been contributing in the global development scene

for the last fifty years in various capacities. The image used on the cover page has been retrieved from the Access to Justice Program Website.

This publication may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research and private study. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not in a misleading

context. The material must be acknowledged as copyright and the title of the publication specified.

Further information or free copies of this publication can be obtained by sending an e-mail to [email protected];calling 0092 51 2274840; faxing a request at 0092 51 9213740 or by writing to the

MPS, 14-Kyber Block,Gulshen e Jinnah,Islamabad, Pakistan.



ABSTRACT

It is widely believed that International Financial Institutions do not assess the commitment of

client countries before extending heavy loans to them in the form of budgetary support. This

results in failure of projects and programs that otherwise would contribute in social and

economic uplift of the country as well as the people. Access to Justice Program in Pakistan is

a recent example. The justice sector policy reform program was financed by Asian

Development Bank in 2001. It failed to produce desired results and the burden of

responsibility seems to fall on both the government as well as ADB. This paper takes into

account the details of the donor driven program to deliberate on reasons that contributed in

the failure of a high profile program in Pakistan.



Index Page No

1. Introduction 06

2. Objectives of AJP 07

3. Main Components 09

4. Implementation Arrangements 10

5. Achievements 10

5.1 Infrastructure development in Khyber 10

5.2 Infrastructure development in Baluchistan 10

5.3 Infrastructure development in Punjab 11

5.4 Procurement of Computers 11

5.4 Revamping Police Training 12

6. Failures 14

6.1 Problems in Implementation 15

6.2 Focus on Construction Work 15

6.3 Issues in Policy Making 16

6.4 Judicial Independence 17

6.5 Empowering the Poor 18

6.6 Judicial Governance 19

6.7 Citizen Police Relationship 21

6.8 Failure in Extension of Loan 23

6.9 Role of ADB & Government 24

7. Conclusion 25

References Appendix-I




Introduction

Government of Pakistan (GOP) and Asian Development Bank (ADB) signed the Loan

Agreement for Access to Justice Program (AJP) on 20 December, 2001. Total outlay of the

loan was $350 million and it was considered as the first ever intervention in the justice sector

by any donor in Pakistan. The challenges in justice sector at that time included improving

incentives for judiciary as well as creating linkages of reform agenda to poverty alleviation

and benefits for the public. (RRP-ADB, 2001)The tasks had been huge and a high quality

judiciary was considered essential for democracy, rule of law, sustainable development and

poverty reduction. There had been continuous calls and recommendations by various forums

to reform the justice sector in Pakistan but no serious effort was ever made to improve the

efficiency of police and courts. (Pakistan Law Commission Report,1993)

When General Pervez Musharraf came to power in 2000, he being the military ruler felt the

need to take some popular decisions in order to establish his rule. In this background, he

announced the devolution plan and ultimately promulgated the Local Government Ordinance

2001. Focus on improving service delivery at grass-root level naturally highlighted need to

improve the condition and working of judicial system in the country. The new military ruler

was also under immense pressure to raise funds for public sector projects as well as to

increase the foreign exchange reserves in order to improve the country’s economic indicators.

In this backdrop, ADB approved this high sounding budgetary support program for Pakistan.

The swiftness, with which all details and designs of AJP were finalized, is intriguing. The

appraisal mission reached Pakistan in September, 2001 and in four months a comprehensive

plan was finalized. The ultimate beneficiaries of the justice sector reform program were

supposed to be the common poor citizens who had no proper access to courts for redressal of

their miseries. The law and judicial sector had been chronically under-funded impairing the

quality of judicial services. This malaise manifested in a monstrous backlog existing



throughout the courts with chronic delays in disposal of cases of five, ten, even twenty years.

Other problems included shortages of judges and courthouses, inadequate facilities, and a

dismal system of compensation, giving rise to complaints of endemic corruption.

It was thus natural to expect that experts and consultants responsible for designing the

program would suggest components and activities that guaranteed easy, immediate and

reliable justice to the citizens. ADB consultants held meetings with the judicial officers and

Bar Associations and consolidated their demands in the form of a project. However, no

serious effort was made to contact public in general to get specific direction required for AJP

reforms and no country wide survey was conducted for this multi-million dollar justice sector

intervention.

A close study of the relevant documents reveals that it is difficult to establish connections

between AJP’s aims and undertakings. (Fact Finding Mission Report,2001) The rock-bed for

AJP was therefore, faulty. The program lacked a clear direction as well as strategy to

implement the schemes that had no connections with the set objectives. AJP team tried to

improve the justice sector in Pakistan through schemes designed by their experts but when

targets are measured with the benchmark of disbursement of loan, no effective results can be

expected. The AJP not only spent most of their money on irrelevant projects but even failed to

spend whole of the loan amount. The program failed to close in time and was extended twice

in order to assist the completion of schemes. Program that was seen as element of country’s

poverty reduction strategy, ultimately ended up by spending money on construction of offices

and purchase of vehicles. Story of AJP in Pakistan ended on 31 June 2008 but it definitely

raised myriad questions about the responsibility of the stakeholders.



Objectives of AJP

Access to Justice Program sought to enhance citizen's access to justice by ensuring the

provision of security and equal protection of law to citizens, securing and sustaining

entitlements for reducing the vulnerability of the poor.

Main Components

The total funding made available by ADB for achievement of this goal was $350 million of

which $20 million was specified for technical assistance, $25 million for Access to Justice

Development Fund (AJDF) and $305 million for program activities. (Loan Agreement, 2001)

The program involved a vast amount of foundational work, much of which was complex and

inter-dependent on other reforms in other sectors such as police, ombudsman. An effort was

undertaken to improve the management of the courts. It included reviewing the courts'

information management system, measuring judicial performance, refining performance

standards and improving compensation systems. Initiatives were made to introduce continuing

on the-job training for judges to improve judicial competence. A training-of-trainers program

on curriculum development and presentation skills was conducted for the teaching faculty of

Federal Judicial Academy. Many judges and court administrators were sent to other common

law jurisdictions including Britain, Canada, the United States, Australia and Singapore to

study the 'do-able' role-models of how courts could reassume control of their day-to-day

proceedings. In the second and third phase efforts were made to address civic matters and

reach out to the users and beneficiaries at the grass-root level. (AJP Judicial Journal, 2009)

In order to improve the quality of judicial policymaking, an important initiative focused on

expanding role and mandate of the Law and Justice Commission to include responsibility for

coordinating the administration of justice. Another major component was the pilot project in

delay reduction, which is arguably the earliest visible success of the program. This included a

plan to dispose of pending cases. Chief justices of respective high courts endorsed the

extension of the pilot project to all courts throughout the country. Proposals were also

developed to revamp the process serving establishment agency, and to improve court relations



by introducing bench-bar and citizen-court liaison committees in every district. The delay

reduction project intended to introduce courts' automation plan which could provide a

blueprint for major improvements in information management capacity across the justice

sector. The training-of-trainers program at the Federal Judicial Academy was also worked out

for foundation of training capacity within the judiciary itself. Publication of the bench book to

provide a quality-assured practical tool for judges with extended shelf-life was also realized

under AJP. Revamping of courts statistical reporting system and the first publication of annual

performance reports for the courts in the past thirty years was also part of the plan.

The designers of the program rightly identified that judicial reforms should focus on two

sectors i.e. Justice Sector and Police Sector. It is interesting to note that reforms areas

identified by AJP were very much relevant to the requirements. The AJP pledged to overhaul

policy making in the justice sector by introducing steps to strengthen judiciary and by

empowering the poor and the vulnerable. There could be no difference of opinion when AJP

vouchsafed to introduce a transparent police force that vowed to foster better police citizen

relationship. In the light of these targets, access to inexpensive justice, people friendly police

and empowerment of the vulnerable and women in justice sector were identified as the three

main components of AJP.

Implementation Arrangements

Ministry of Law (MOL) was identified as the Implementing Agency for AJP and a Project

Management Unit (PMU) was formed to implement the program. The Program Director (PD)

of AJP was supposed to be a senior officer representing government side with the mandate to

implement the program. (RRP-ADB, 2001) According to the instructions it was required that

no government officer should be given dual charge for the post of PD and he would not be

transferred from that position in order to ensure effective implementation of the program. The

PD had a large team consisting of officers responsible to implement AJP. A team consisting of

professionals and experts hired by ADB were also there to assist the government team. A

National Steering Committee (NSC) stationed in MOL was responsible for oversight of the

activities under AJP.



Achievements

Following is the list of activities undertaken by AJP during the implementation of this justice

sector program. These activities have been described by ADB as their achievements.

Infrastructure Development In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

A sum of Rs.3459 million was utilized for renovation and construction of 110 Court Rooms

and 81 residences for judges in various districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. This construction

work in the District Courts in NWFP for District & Session Judges and Civil Judges was

commenced to “improve the working conditions of the lower judiciary”. This work also

includes construction of more than 150 litigant sheds, Bakhshi Khanas and lavatories in

various districts as public facilities for litigants and general public. Construction of six judicial

Complexes and two bar rooms was also part of infrastructure improvement efforts being

undertaken under the Program. The land for the judicial complexes in Hazara, Malakand,

Southern Region and Haripur was acquired with the expenditure of Rs.64 million. (DAWN,

2008)

Approximately Rs.400 million was spent on the establishment of new offices, barracks, and

renovation of infrastructure in police and prison departments. It included schemes such as

construction of 24 District Investigation Headquarters, Provision of Medico-legal wards,

Criminal Records Office, Construction of District Jail Hangu, lock-ups, guard-rooms,

Installation of Close Circuit Cameras in Prison Department and other projects concerning

improvement in access to justice and better services for the people.

Infrastructure Development in Baluchistan

As part of the financial plan, Balochistan was entitled to a share of Rs 1,140.8 million as per

NFC formulae, of which Rs 1056.0 million were set for budgetary allocation and Rs 1,008

million were released by AJP for works on uplift schemes in the province. In judiciary, total

18 schemes with an estimated cost of Rs 258 million were carried out. As part of this

financial plan, 35 court rooms and buildings, 27 residences for judicial officers, 16 litigant



sheds with amenities, a judicial complex and a bar room were constructed and money was

spent on the purchase of land for these works. The Police Department was also given Rs. 282

million establishment of new police lines, barracks and residential complexes for the police

officials. The Prisons Department had reserved Rs 247 million for the construction of 10

barracks, 12 death cells and 54 lodges for jail staffers. (Daily Times, 2008)

Infrastructure Development in Punjab

Punjab was projected as a leading province in implementation of the AJP. The achievements

included work on 410 construction schemes under the Program. Punjab was extended Rs.

6132 million under AJP and around 342 schemes were carried out with this amount. As part

of this plan, 178 Court rooms and buildings, 329 residences for judicial officers, 52 buildings

with amenities for litigants, 21 judicial complexes, 2 bar rooms, land acquisition at 8 places

and 8 projects for raising the capacity of departments with information technology equipment

were installed. (Nation, 2008)

The Police Department with its share of PKR.327 million focused on establishment of 14 new

Police Lines, 19 barracks and 13 residential complexes, 128 death cells, 64 residences for jail

staff, 17 lavatories and 2 high security jails. The Law Department Punjab also utilized Rs.94

million on various infrastructure schemes in the province. The Home department in the

province also spent Rs.13 million on the centralized automated record management on child

protection & data base for prisoners, crime situation, law and order.

Procurement of Computers

AJP procured 1461 computers for courts throughout the country under AJP. Hi-tech

Computers were procured after an international bidding for the automation of judiciary

throughout Pakistan. Out of this lot, 600 computers were distributed in all the courts in Punjab

whereas 317 machines were installed in courts in Sind. Similarly the share of NWFP and

Baluchistan for these digital equipments was 207 and 82 respectively. The computers were

also given to 67 Bar Associations around the country to enable Bars to fulfill their “mandated

responsibilities regarding legal matters”. (AJP Newsletter, 2008) The provision of computers



and other IT accessories to judiciary at a large scale was seen as an effort to improve

efficiency of the courts. Digitalization of courts as a result of this intervention was expected to

result in free and easy access to information for the common people concerning justice sector.

(AJP Annual Report, 2008)

Revamping of Police Training System

AJP had taken a resolve to revamp the police training system in Pakistan in line with reforms

introduced under New Police Order 2002. Ministry of Law and National Police Academy

reached an agreement to exploit capacity building provisions in AJP and entered the second

generation reforms. It may be recalled that first phase of reforms ‘focused’ on infrastructure

development of the judiciary and in the second phase focus was to target areas concerning

police, prisons and professional training institutes in order to build linkages with them and to

promote public grievance redress mechanism. (Khan,2005) In order to reach the objectives,

AJP decided to strengthen National Police Academy by providing them with computers and

forensic facility. Under this program 78 training modules were also prepared for police

officers by a Police Reforms Specialist.

Public Awareness

AJP spend millions of rupees on publishing a varied range of simplified material on legal

matters. The 227 booklets printed were meant for dissemination among the public and users of

justice sector. The documents focused on themes of legal education and empowerment of the

common people covering topics relevant to justice sector problems faced by the public in day

to day life. AJP also published and disseminated 25 guidelines for the people on issues such

as; how to acquire a National I D Card; how to register an FIR; how to register complaint

against highhandedness of police officials; laws about consumer rights; legal cover for the

rights of bonded labor and the like. (AJP Newsletter,2008)These booklets were written in

Urdu and effort was made to reach out to the common people and impart the legal information

through simplified messages. The material was disseminated at large scale through District



Councils, Tehsil Councils, Union Councils, libraries and Public Information Kiosks

established at District Courts.

The emphasis of this public awareness campaign was also on newly introduced police

reforms. Some attractive and informative posters were designed for people at the grassroots

level so that they could know about their rights in the civic and administrative system of the

government. These posters intended to educate the masses about information and procedures

for grievance redress under New Police Order such as Role of District Public Safety

Commission, Citizen Police Liaison Committee and mechanism of accountability of Police.

Mr.Azhar Hasan Nadeem, Inspector General of Police in Punjab had directed to display these

posters for public viewing in the Police Stations so that visitors may acquire information about

their rights and mechanism of accountability under Police Reforms.

Consumer Courts

Eight Consumers Courts were established in Punjab that was headed by District and Session

Judges. These courts established under the justice sector reform agenda were destined to play

positive and effective role in extending maximum relief to the public. The concept of setting

up consumer courts was to discourage the sub-standard articles of daily use and defective

services to the masses.

Access to Information

AJP aimed at empowering the citizens to get access to information in the light of Freedom of

Information Ordinance 2002. AJP understood that citizen’s inability to acquire timely and

accurate information hinders their claim to fundamental entitlements. AJP launched a

nationwide public campaign on right to freedom of information. This campaign aimed at

educating public to use their right to obtain information held by the public authorities. AJP’s

constant advocacy and lobbying with provincial governments and holding of activities with

concerned stakeholders moved the provincial governments to enact Freedom of Information

law. The Government of Balochistan enacted Freedom of Information Act 2005. This was

followed by promulgation of Freedom of Information Ordinance by Governor of Sindh. Later



Provincial Assembly, Sindh enacted the Ordinance into an Act in 2006. The Provinces of

Punjab and NWFP did not take part in this imperative legislation.

The AJP provided technical assistance in number of complementary actions to translate this

policy initiative into effective implementation to strengthen right to access to information.

Five capacity building workshops – one in Islamabad and four in provinces were held. The

participants include government officials of different departments, judicial officers,

representative from civil society organizations, journalists, lawyers, political activists, bank

officers, common people and students from universities and colleges. It also tried to dispel

official mindset used to hide public information by labeling it as classified, secret and

confidential. To further strengthen institutional mechanism computers were provided to the

courts along with designing and installation of information management system to facilitate

litigants’ as well legal community to take information about exact status of their cases.

Capacity Building

Capacity building has been the most misleading aspect of project implementation. It is worth

mentioning that Rs.77 million were spent in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province for the capacity

building of staff in courts of Additional and Session Judges and Rs.58 million were earmarked

for the up-gradation and improvement of Civil Courts in the Province. Under these schemes,

around 57 Additional Session Judges, 50 Civil Judges and more than 1242 sub-ordinate staff

was recruited. These courts have also been provided with computers and other necessities to

run the day to day affairs effectively.

Failures

Numerous local factors count much when a particular model of governance is being developed

and applied in a country (Rhudy,2000). In the case of AJP local realities were neither studied

thoroughly and nor were given a place in the strategy map. It resulted into a long list of

disappointments during the implementation of AJP reforms. Following is a discussion

summarizing some of the key problematic areas that surfaced during the AJP experience in

Pakistan.



Problems with Implementation Arrangements

Ministry of Law being the IA was responsible for results in line with the set targets. However

neither Minister for Law nor Secretary Law had enough time to dig deep into the details of

implementation of AJP. In eight years it was only once that Minister for Law chaired a

meeting on AJP. The Steering Committee could not meet regularly and usually its meeting

was called only in emergency matters. Most of the Steering Committee meetings were held in

2005 and 2006 when AJP had been flagged as ‘at risk’ program by the donors. In the initial

phase of implementation the approval of Judicial Commission comprising of Supreme Court

Judges gave approval for schemes being funded from Asian Development Fund Sources.

Those judges either had no time to dispose off cases in time or were very conservative and

careful in giving approvals. The PD was frequently changed and transferred from AJP and

there were occasions when AJP had no boss for longer periods. The officers appointed in AJP

from government side were incompetent and ineffective as they lacked competency. The ADB

consultants were more concerned in disbursement of loan money and they had not made an

effort to link the activities with set targets of AJP. The implementation arrangements for AJP

were not in line with the requirements of an ambitious program. The program started in 2001

and for five long years no body realized that AJP needed some arrangements to look after the

implementation of schemes in the respective provinces. It was only in 2005 that Provincial

Management Units of AJP were introduced in the country but it was too late. The damage has

already been done.

Focus on Construction Work

AJP received wide scale criticism on its focus on infrastructure development such as

residences for judges and offices. Infrastructure already available might not have been enough

but it was there. The analysts think that focus would have been on practical aspects of

governance in spite of on construction work which has no relation with the plight of the poor.

Same number of districts had same number of offices and courts even before AJP. It was

argued by the experts that Justice is not in the bricks and stones but in the mindset and just



sector reforms should have tried to change the perceptions and behavior of the stakeholders

like police and judges towards the beneficiaries of judicial system.

The equipment was also provided to digitalize major libraries in justice sector departments

such as Law Department, Home Departments and Offices of the Ombudsman. The idea was

to automate the police and justice sector by introducing automation of registration of Firs and

to link the proceeding of court with computers. But this brilliant idea could not be translated

into reality and expensive computers could only be used as typing machines.

Issues in Policy Making

AJP boasts of introducing amendments in Law Commission Ordinance 1979 as the most

visible achievement on policy making front. The ordinance only expanded the mandate and

composition of Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan by including Chief Justice of

Pakistan in it. AJP considers the introduction of National Judicial Policy Making Committee

(NJPMC) as its policy achievement. But ironically the inclusion of CJP in NJPMC was the

most important factor that resulted in slow progress of development schemes under AJP.

Target of AJP to revamp the justice sector policy was well set but tools employed and

activities undertaken to reach the target were highly controversial. AJP in fact miserably failed

in restructuring the justice sector in Pakistan for improving the service delivery for the poor

and vulnerable. Policy initiatives such as promulgation of ordinances about access to

information and dissemination of information about establishment of consumer courts were

projected as policy achievements. But one feels like asking as to what were the changes in

policy matters pertaining to procedures at courts and police stations that were introduced by

AJP during the implementation period of eight years. Were any structural changes introduced

for registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) at the police stations? Was access to courts

at the grass-root level made better for the poor and vulnerable? What mechanism was adopted

by AJP to ensure inexpensive justice for the disadvantageous groups in the light of its self-set

targets? The answer is a big NO. None of the areas were touched and no effort was made

under AJP to change the structure and improve the efficiency of justice sector in Pakistan.



Judicial Independence

ADB’s Completion Report about AJP states that good progress was made to ensure

independence of judiciary in Pakistan. The Project Completion Report (PCR, 2010) further

explains that budgetary allocations for the federal level and the provincial levels were

increased for the purpose. At federal level the budget for SC was increased from Rs.466

million in 2001 to Rs.926 million in 2008. Similarly provincial budgets were given an

increase by 18%. Is increasing finances a guarantee for an independent judiciary? Was this a

well worked out target? The ADB report does not however explains that this increase

expenditure was spent on enhanced salaries of the judges and on purchase of vehicles. This

“strengthened and independent” judiciary was sent home by General Pervez Musharraf in

2008 by sheer use of force and there was no mechanism in place to safeguard the secure

presence of justice system in the political economy of the country. Even at the lower level

simple separation of judiciary from executive was termed as the independence of judiciary

which was in fact wrong. The separation of judiciary from the executive may be a step in the

right direction but no institutional arrangements were suggested and introduced by AJP to

handle the pressure faced by the lower courts. Simple flow of funds for schemes that had no

relevance with the fate of the poor could not help at all.

Provision of Inexpensive Justice?

It is interesting to note the way AJP connects its ‘achievements’ with the ‘empowerment ‘of

poor. ADB thinks that their effort resulted in clearance of backlog of cases all around the

country. They quote their own generated reports and say that as a result of case management

reforms, judges disposed of around 25% more cases than before and this efficiency of courts

was termed as equivalent to 0.5% growth in GDP. ADB seems to be of the view that this

fiscal benefit has automatically been passed on to the poor and the vulnerable as they explain

this efficiency under their target of ‘ensuring inexpensive justice.’ According to studies

(Armytage, 2003) CJP Mr.Iftikhar Chaudahry himself had been the cause of clearance of

backlog of 80000 cases who had put all the judges in the country on their toes by increasing



monitoring. AJP’s claim to link it with provision of inexpensive justice seems interesting and

speaks volumes of how AJP was handled by its team of professionals.

ADB’s AJP had introduced some legislative changes in filing of habeas corpus applications

and amendments in Civil Procedure Code of 1908. Although the initiatives are welcome but

ADB’s claim that these changes resulted in provision of better access for the vulnerable

needed to be supported by some statistics. Up till this time no study has been undertaken

either by GOP or by ADB to testify the implications of the amendments made under AJP in

the name improved access to justice system. The most propagated arrangement for

inexpensive justice was the introduction of “Musalihat Anjumun” (MA) that was to be

operationalized at Union Council level. This was an alternate arrangement for dispute

resolution for the people but ADB itself admits that MAs could not be operationalized as

envisioned under AJP.

Empowering the Poor and Vulnerable

It is recognized that inability to access to justice is the most obvious sign of inequality in

society. (Abregu,2001) AJP tried to empower the poor and vulnerable by publishing booklets

and pamphlets on various legal and procedural matters pertaining to courts and police. In a

country where literacy rate for men is 65% whereas only 45% of women are literate, the

decision to publish information booklets required qualification. Most important of all, it

needed a justification whether it would really empower the major population of the country or

not who are illiterate and have no access to published materials. More sad part of the story is

that all the list of publications for empowering the people were published only in the last year

of AJP implementation only to meet the targets set as exercise. The books and pamphlets were

bundled in big bags and posted to District Coordination Officers all over Pakistan for

circulation in the government agencies and offices. They never reached those for whom they

were published i.e. the poor and the vulnerable. People waiting on the broken wooden

benches in the police station courtyards were waiting for perhaps something else that AJP

could not capture in their scheme of things.



Judicial Governance

The institutional obstacles in legal and judicial system of the developing countries have been

the major cause of poor governance. (Anderson, 2003) When AJP talked about improving

judicial governance, people at the lower strata of life thought that now measure would be

taken to ensure that no official will extort money from the litigants and complainants and that

only a simple application would set the court system to process his request for grievance

redressal . However to our astonishment, activities undertaken by ADB in the name of judicial

governance were quite different. Under this head, the judicial officers were offered three times

rise in salaries and allowances and this exercise was unanimously agreed and adopted by GOP

and ADB both. While judges qualified for new residences, renovated offices, new cars and

enhanced salaries, police continued to extort money from the seekers of justice.

Human Resource Development

ADB states that there biggest achievement in order to develop the human resources under AJP

was to help open a Law School at Lahore University of Management Science (LUMS).The

said university is a leading private sector university where millionaire students can only afford

to get admission and study. Similarly, development of some manuals and courses was

undertaken for the Federal Judicial Academy (FJA) but unfortunately those manuals could not

get clearance from the judges until the closure of AJP. Human resource development at FJA

could therefore only be restricted to investment in renovation of office, building and library.

ADB’s project documents are silent about any component that focused on the training of the

trainers at FJA.

Ensuring Accountability in Police

AJP’s endeavor was to “ensure an independent, accountable transparent and professional

police”. It is acknowledged by the analysts that adoption of Police Order 2002 by GOP was

the landmark decision that could have transformed the working of police department in favor

of the people. However one very fundamental mistake has already been done by the National

Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) in this regard. Firstly, they tried to take complete inspiration



from the British model and did not take into account the local expediencies and secondly they

tried to implement the new Police Order through the Police Officers themselves who knew the

tricks to maneuver the rules and provisions in their favor. The police officers had already

become all the more powerful after the dissolution of the institution of Deputy Commissioner

in the district. The vague and intricate schematization of oversight offered in Police Order

2002 made police department independent but in no way accountable. AJP exclaims that

establishment of Public Safety Commissions (PSCs) at federal, provincial and district level

represented by the public representatives was a great success. It would have been a huge

achievement if these oversight bodies had actually become operational. Almost in all the

provinces there were disagreements on the selection of members of PSCs and complaints

about non-serious attitude of police officers towards the observations of PSCs became a

common phenomenon. At national level National Public Safety Commission could not even

become operational. The dismal performance of PSCs has been a sad story in the era of

decentralization when AJP was given the responsibility to make police a people friendly

department. Departments do not change cultures and mindset under the influence of

ordinances and AJP without realizing the ground realities continued to measure their

performance in terms of findings of seminars and workshops.

Independent Prosecution

According to the legislation under Police Order 2002, independent prosecution department

was established to ensure transparent trials. Previously investigation and prosecution used to

be handled by the same officers in police stations. The separation of both the departments

must have been a brilliant idea but it did not work in Pakistan well at least till the closure of

AJP. There were huge differences among the provinces over the implementation of this Police

Order and even differences among the police officials continuously surfaced during the period.

A workshop of police officers conducted in Faisalabad in June 2008 concluded that separation

has created more confusion among the beneficiaries as well as the police officers. It was

pointed out that separation of the two branches has created disconnect between the officers

working under the same roof resulting in communication gaps.



Creation of Independent Complaint Authority

The right to get legal protection is the test of government’s commitment to rights of the people

(Harshcoff & Hollander, 2000) Establishment of independent complaint authorities was

another ‘ideal’ situation visualized by AJP without taking into account the ground realities.

The target set by AJP was only to announce the establishment of complaint authorities but

evaluation of the application of this philosophy was entrusted to no one. Interestingly the

complaint authorities were merged in Public Safety Commissions which were already

ineffective. The process of making a complaint was simple; an application on a plain paper

against any police officer could initiate actions against him. But did it work? Did the head of

public safety commissions ever initiated cases against police officers on general complaints?

The answer is in negative. The weak pubic representatives lacked the sinews to challenge the

authority and power of the police officers even if there was a complaint against them. The

chairman of the PSC could only request the District Police Officer to initiate action against the

offender police officials but nothing more than this. Under the law DPO was not obliged to

ensure implementation on the recommendation of the Chairman of PSC. Even the statistics

show that entirely insignificant number of complaints was registered against the police during

this time and this happened in the country which is known as the police state. In this backdrop,

it is unjustified on the part of AJP to claim the creation of ‘independent complaint authority’

as one of their landmark achievements.

Fostering better Police Citizen Relationship

ADB had tied the release of third tranche of AJP loan amounting to $9,764,808,000 with

government’s efforts to foster Police-Citizen relationship. AJP’s main plan revolved around

Citizen Police Liaison Committees(CPLCs) and main inspiration was taken from the

successful experience of Karachi’s City Police Liaison Committee that has been delivering

since long and that too independent of any effort connected with AJP. GOP failed to muster

up enough support for replication of CPLCs in all the districts of the country. They in fact

categorically refused to legislate on this matter of high importance. Interesting part of the

story is that ADB accepted the logic forwarded by GOP that legislation on CPLCs cannot be



made. In order to fulfill the condition a Media and Communication Specialist was hired for

only two months and that too only two months before the closing the loan date just to register

that efforts to improve citizen police relationship were being done by AJP. As a result of this

‘achievement’, ADB released the third tranche of loan, badly needed by the government that

faced financial constraints at that time.

Raising Human Rights Awareness

Legal empowerment is giving the people relevant skills and awareness to access institutions

for grievance redress (Singh, 2009). AJP’s list of achievement vaunts about the role they

played in raising human rights awareness during the implementation of program. Details on

the activities undertaken for this awareness campaign are nowhere to be seen in ADB’s

Project Completion Report. According to an inside information, no exclusive activities were

designed or implemented by ADB or even GOP under the umbrella of AJP. In fact, material

such as posters, booklets and pamphlets designed by the media and communication specialist

is being referred under various topics as cross-cutting thematic activity. ADB used this two

month activity to show achievement in connection with themes such as fostering citizen-

police relationship, raising human rights awareness and even gender empowerment. The

reality is the AJP only produced two posters projecting the importance of women police in

society. This published material was supposed to be circulated among all police stations and

union councils for display. According to the sources, those pamphlets, booklets and posters

were never circulated by AJP till the closure of the loan in 2008.

Gender empowerment

A good combination of Law, social justice and development can only help improve the

condition of women in the developing countries (Dasgupta,2002). While commenting on their

achievement’s on the issue of ‘gender empowerment’, AJP states that during the period of

implementation of program, the number of “share of women judges in the lower courts

increased from 3.67% to 5.76% in the Punjab, from 5.88% to 11.90% in Balochistan, from

7.61% to 13.72% in NWFP, and from 7.30% to 15.45% in Sindh”. They also add that five



women police stations were set and a considerable number of women were recruited as traffic

wardens in the light of this initiative. AJP, however is silent as to what statistical impact these

initiatives had on empowering the common women in the society. Some empirical evidence

should have suggested the connection between AJP initiative on recruiting women judges and

women traffic police and social development indicators pertaining to crime and harassment of

women in the society. It is not difficult to understand that ADB considered the activities

undertaken by their consultants as the benchmarks and in real no change actually took place in

society as a result of this multi-million dollar justice sector program. (Yasin and Shah, 2004)

Failure in extension of TA Loan

The TA Loan for AJP could have played a very important role in implementation of the whole

justice sector reform. But lack of vision, strategy and leadership rendered the program useless.

It has been argued by the experts that ‘good practice should focus on the needs of the people

at the beginning of the criminal justice system (Penal Reform International, 2006). However

AJP started by focusing on the end products first. Their main focus was on improving

visibility and infrastructure and not on the procedural requirements at the police stations and

civil and criminal courts. The Technical Assistance Loan should have ideally started much

ahead of the actual loan as its responsibility was to prepare a feasibility study and an

implementation plan for the justice sector reformation in Pakistan. But in this case TA Loan

team could not be in place in time. The disbursements for loan started ahead of activities in

TA Loan and it was like proverbial putting the cart before the horse. It is interesting to note

that this TA Loan was being provided at 1% interest rate and was considered the most

important portion of AJP that was to serve as the nervous system for AJP exercise. However,

AJP activities under TA Loan failed to kick off in time and failed to culminate in time. The

sad part of the story is that the AJP team even failed to utilize the soft loan for its key

activities and could only spend $8 million out of $20 million earmarked by ADB. There was a

large scale criticism even inside ADB because of non-utilization of TA Loan and ADB

decided to withdraw remaining $12 million on 30 June 16, 2008 closing the program activities

altogether. Pakistan’s law minister wrote a letter to President ADB requesting to give



extension to TA Loan so that ongoing activities can be finished but the request of the minister

was not considered. TA loan was important because its objective was also to provide support

to the actual $330 million program loan which is scheduled to end in June 2011. AJP left all

the activities in the mid-way and decided to close all the initiatives pertaining to the

‘revolution’ of revamping the justice sector in Pakistan.

Role of ADB in AJP

ADB termed their own performance in AJP as ‘partly successful’ (PCR-ADB, 2009). The

targets set by ADB were too good to be implemented. The benchmarks set by ADB only

counted the number of activities undertaken and it did not take into account the results and

effects of AJP interventions. International financial institutions are mainly concerned with the

disbursement issue and even on this account the ADB team could not deliver. ADB did not

made any objections for time constraint and lack of vision on desired targets at the time of

signing of Loan Agreement. All along the period ranging from 2001 to 2008, the role of ADB

has been intriguing. They continuously closed their eyes towards the incompetence of GOP

and ADB consultants and kept on releasing the tranches required by the government without

much hassle. But as soon as the money lent on market rate was dispersed, ADB became

disinterested in continuing giving any leverage on the fund flowing from the ADF window.

They disbursed the costly loan and suspended the soft loan and that is how they managed the

resources under AJP. Role of an international organization in today’s world must be to enable

the disadvantaged groups to become more self-sufficient (McClymont,2000) but ADB could

not come up to the expectations in the case of AJP.

Role of Government

Justice sector in developing countries is too much ‘state centered and donor

driven’(Golub,2003).Basically the burden of responsibility of failing AJP falls on the

shoulders of GOP and not on ADB. It was the responsibility to ensure effective measures for

management of resources under this program which they started to empower the poor and

vulnerable people. They were required to build a comprehensive plan to materialize the



desires of the common people who have been victims of mal-administration of police and

courts. It was them who had to see and decide as to what was required for overhauling the

justice sector of Pakistan. But all this happened now where for the simple reason that GOP

was only interested in getting fiscal space to finance their public sector development projects.

There was no national plan in place to reform the justice sector in the country. The program

was used to indirectly please the judges in all tiers of hierarchy without looking into the

details as to what effects non-developmental expenditure under AJP will have on the country’s

feeble economy. Governments should be made answerable under the law for faulty designing

of projects and programs. Governments should also understand that budgetary support should

not be understood as an easy way to secure funds and proper care should be taken in

identifying the targets and activities financed under programs.

Conclusion

Lack of vision and profound strategy to introduce reforms in the justice sector of Pakistan

resulted in failure of reforms under AJP. The program was introduced by General Pervez

Musharraf who ironically himself had inflicted damage to the constitution by imposing Legal

Framework Order (LFO) in 2000 and by suspending all the judges of high courts and Supreme

Court in 2008. AJP’s scheme of things did not touch country’s judicial system, rather focused

on construction of infrastructure as if the country was in the stone age era and had no offices

and courts altogether. The bureaucratic set up and infrastructure available in Pakistan has

already been huge and mere focus on bricks and barracks was a sheer waste of money. The

real policy areas needed to be worked out but all the recommendations of AJP failed because

no consensus was developed before introducing them in the country. The issue of improving

performance of police and judges could have given results if only monitoring mechanism had

been bettered. One example that has been widely noticed by the people is the judicial

efficiency of courts in Azad Kashmir; an autonomous territory in Pakistan. The Chief Justice

of Azad Kashmir installed one fax machine in his office and asked all the judges under his

jurisdiction to fax him the details of disposal of cases on daily basis. He personally monitored

the disposal of cases and within six months all the territory’s trial cases that had been pending



since thirty years, were disposed of without the help of AJP. AJP with their $350 million

could not even achieve this in Pakistan. Streamline of procedures in justice sector could have

been achieved if there was an effort to change the mindset. But in the case of AJP, neither

judicial officers nor the government and nor ADB showed their concern about poor and the

vulnerable. Judicial officers thought that justice sector can only be improved if they are

provided with renovated offices and new brand cars. The government was more concerned

about budgetary support than in the justice sector reforms. And similarly ADB thought it a

wonderful opportunity to introduce first ever justice sector reforms in the country by

extending funds from their Ordinary Capital Resource Window. AJP was just a name given to

a budgetary support program readily available from a donor to prop up the economy

dwindling in the hands of a military ruler. The mechanism to ensure effective utilization of

budgetary support remained absent during the process and ultimately resulted in failure of

justice sector reforms in Pakistan.

To conclude the argument, it would be suffice to say that ‘a renewed anti-poverty agenda is

needed to include the majority of world population in the system of rights and obligations that

foster prosperity’ (UNDP,2008). It is therefore the responsibility of the respective

governments to own their mistakes and prepare themselves for a better future for the coming

generations. Ideally speaking ‘government’s commitment should be assessed before Banks

agree to finance’ a judicial reform proposal (Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, 2000)

and in the case of AJP it did not happen at all.



References Appendix - I

Fact Finding Mission Report, (2001), ADB Document. Manila, Phillipines.

Report and Recommendation of the President (RRP),(2001). ADB Document. Manila Phillipines.

Khan, M. S. (2005) The Denial of Justice—the Cost. Unpublished paper.

Van Puymbroeck, R. V. (ed.) 2003. The World Bank Legal Review

Sadiq.F.K (2001) The Way Forward: Access and Dispensation of Justice, Policy Paper. Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Abregu, M. 2001, 'Barricades or Obstacles: The Challenges of Accessible Justice', in R. V. Puymbroeck, (ed) Comprehensive Legal and Judicial Developments: Towards an Agenda for a Just and Equitable Society in the 21st Century', World Bank, Washington DC.

Anderson, M. (2003), 'Access to Justice and Legal Process: Making Legal Institutions Responsive to Poor People in LDCs', comment paper on access to justice and legal process, paper for discussion at WDR Meeting,16-17 August 1999.

Singh, A., ed.,(2009), ‘Strengthening Governance Through Access to Justice’, PHI Learning, New Dehli

UNDP,(2008), ‘Making the Law Work for Everyone’, Report of the Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor, United Nations Development Programme, New York. Volume 1

Golub, S.,(2003), 'Beyond the Rule of Law Orthodoxy: The Legal Empowerment Alternative', Democracy and the Rule of Law Project, Rule of Law Series No. 41, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

McClymont, M. and Golub, S. (2000), 'Nonlawyers as Legal Resources for their Communities', in Many Roads to Justice, Ford Foundation.

Rhudy, R, (2000), 'Expanding Access to Justice: Legal Aid Models for Latin America', chapter 2 in 'Justice Beyond Our Border, Inter-american Development Bank, Washington DC.

Open Society Justice Initiative, (2004), 'Justice Initiatives: Legal Aid Reform and Access to Justice', February 2004 Issue, Open Society Justice Initiative, New York



Hershkoff, H. and Hollander D. (2000), 'Rights into Action: Public Interest Litigation in the United States,' in M. McClymount and S. Golub (eds.) Many Roads to Justice, Ford Foundation.

Dasgupta, M.,(2002), 'Social Action for Women? Public Interest Litigation in India's Supreme Court,' Law, Social Justice and Global Development Review, 2002, No. 1

Websites

www.adb.org

www.dailytimes.com.pk

www.dawn.com

www.nation.com

It is widely believed that International Financial Institutions do not assess the commitment of client countries before extending heavy loans to them in the form of budgetary support. This results in failure of projects and programs that otherwise could have contributed in the social and economic uplift of the country as well as the people. Access to Justice Program in Pakistan is a recent example. The justice sector policy reform program was financed by Asian Development Bank in 2001. It failed to produce desired results and the burden of responsibility seems to fall on both the government as well as ADB. This paper takes into account the details of the donor driven program to deliberate on reasons that contributed in the failure of a high profile program in Pakistan.

Mukhtar Paras Shah National Graduate Institute of Policy

Studies, Tokyo




Why did Justice Plan fail?

Story of an ADB intervention

in Pakistan



Dedicated to the people of Pakistan who have recently struggled and

sacrificed to ensure and upheld the independence of judiciary in

Pakistan



This paper was written as part of a research assignment conducted at National Graduate Institute of Policy Studies, Tokyo in Japan.

The document was produced under the supervision of Prof. Ryokichi Hirono who has been contributing in the global development scene

for the last fifty years in various capacities. The image used on the cover page has been retrieved from the Access to Justice Program Website.

This publication may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research and private study. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not in a misleading

context. The material must be acknowledged as copyright and the title of the publication specified.

Further information or free copies of this publication can be obtained by sending an e-mail to [email protected];calling 0092 51 2274840; faxing a request at 0092 51 9213740 or by writing to the

MPS, 14-Kyber Block,Gulshen e Jinnah,Islamabad, Pakistan.



ABSTRACT

It is widely believed that International Financial Institutions do not assess the commitment of

client countries before extending heavy loans to them in the form of budgetary support. This

results in failure of projects and programs that otherwise would contribute in social and

economic uplift of the country as well as the people. Access to Justice Program in Pakistan is

a recent example. The justice sector policy reform program was financed by Asian

Development Bank in 2001. It failed to produce desired results and the burden of

responsibility seems to fall on both the government as well as ADB. This paper takes into

account the details of the donor driven program to deliberate on reasons that contributed in

the failure of a high profile program in Pakistan.



Index Page No

1. Introduction 06

2. Objectives of AJP 07

3. Main Components 09

4. Implementation Arrangements 10

5. Achievements 10

5.1 Infrastructure development in Khyber 10

5.2 Infrastructure development in Baluchistan 10

5.3 Infrastructure development in Punjab 11

5.4 Procurement of Computers 11

5.4 Revamping Police Training 12

6. Failures 14

6.1 Problems in Implementation 15

6.2 Focus on Construction Work 15

6.3 Issues in Policy Making 16

6.4 Judicial Independence 17

6.5 Empowering the Poor 18

6.6 Judicial Governance 19

6.7 Citizen Police Relationship 21

6.8 Failure in Extension of Loan 23

6.9 Role of ADB & Government 24

7. Conclusion 25

References Appendix-I




Introduction

Government of Pakistan (GOP) and Asian Development Bank (ADB) signed the Loan

Agreement for Access to Justice Program (AJP) on 20 December, 2001. Total outlay of the

loan was $350 million and it was considered as the first ever intervention in the justice sector

by any donor in Pakistan. The challenges in justice sector at that time included improving

incentives for judiciary as well as creating linkages of reform agenda to poverty alleviation

and benefits for the public. (RRP-ADB, 2001)The tasks had been huge and a high quality

judiciary was considered essential for democracy, rule of law, sustainable development and

poverty reduction. There had been continuous calls and recommendations by various forums

to reform the justice sector in Pakistan but no serious effort was ever made to improve the

efficiency of police and courts. (Pakistan Law Commission Report,1993)

When General Pervez Musharraf came to power in 2000, he being the military ruler felt the

need to take some popular decisions in order to establish his rule. In this background, he

announced the devolution plan and ultimately promulgated the Local Government Ordinance

2001. Focus on improving service delivery at grass-root level naturally highlighted need to

improve the condition and working of judicial system in the country. The new military ruler

was also under immense pressure to raise funds for public sector projects as well as to

increase the foreign exchange reserves in order to improve the country’s economic indicators.

In this backdrop, ADB approved this high sounding budgetary support program for Pakistan.

The swiftness, with which all details and designs of AJP were finalized, is intriguing. The

appraisal mission reached Pakistan in September, 2001 and in four months a comprehensive

plan was finalized. The ultimate beneficiaries of the justice sector reform program were

supposed to be the common poor citizens who had no proper access to courts for redressal of

their miseries. The law and judicial sector had been chronically under-funded impairing the

quality of judicial services. This malaise manifested in a monstrous backlog existing



throughout the courts with chronic delays in disposal of cases of five, ten, even twenty years.

Other problems included shortages of judges and courthouses, inadequate facilities, and a

dismal system of compensation, giving rise to complaints of endemic corruption.

It was thus natural to expect that experts and consultants responsible for designing the

program would suggest components and activities that guaranteed easy, immediate and

reliable justice to the citizens. ADB consultants held meetings with the judicial officers and

Bar Associations and consolidated their demands in the form of a project. However, no

serious effort was made to contact public in general to get specific direction required for AJP

reforms and no country wide survey was conducted for this multi-million dollar justice sector

intervention.

A close study of the relevant documents reveals that it is difficult to establish connections

between AJP’s aims and undertakings. (Fact Finding Mission Report,2001) The rock-bed for

AJP was therefore, faulty. The program lacked a clear direction as well as strategy to

implement the schemes that had no connections with the set objectives. AJP team tried to

improve the justice sector in Pakistan through schemes designed by their experts but when

targets are measured with the benchmark of disbursement of loan, no effective results can be

expected. The AJP not only spent most of their money on irrelevant projects but even failed to

spend whole of the loan amount. The program failed to close in time and was extended twice

in order to assist the completion of schemes. Program that was seen as element of country’s

poverty reduction strategy, ultimately ended up by spending money on construction of offices

and purchase of vehicles. Story of AJP in Pakistan ended on 31 June 2008 but it definitely

raised myriad questions about the responsibility of the stakeholders.



Objectives of AJP

Access to Justice Program sought to enhance citizen's access to justice by ensuring the

provision of security and equal protection of law to citizens, securing and sustaining

entitlements for reducing the vulnerability of the poor.

Main Components

The total funding made available by ADB for achievement of this goal was $350 million of

which $20 million was specified for technical assistance, $25 million for Access to Justice

Development Fund (AJDF) and $305 million for program activities. (Loan Agreement, 2001)

The program involved a vast amount of foundational work, much of which was complex and

inter-dependent on other reforms in other sectors such as police, ombudsman. An effort was

undertaken to improve the management of the courts. It included reviewing the courts'

information management system, measuring judicial performance, refining performance

standards and improving compensation systems. Initiatives were made to introduce continuing

on the-job training for judges to improve judicial competence. A training-of-trainers program

on curriculum development and presentation skills was conducted for the teaching faculty of

Federal Judicial Academy. Many judges and court administrators were sent to other common

law jurisdictions including Britain, Canada, the United States, Australia and Singapore to

study the 'do-able' role-models of how courts could reassume control of their day-to-day

proceedings. In the second and third phase efforts were made to address civic matters and

reach out to the users and beneficiaries at the grass-root level. (AJP Judicial Journal, 2009)

In order to improve the quality of judicial policymaking, an important initiative focused on

expanding role and mandate of the Law and Justice Commission to include responsibility for

coordinating the administration of justice. Another major component was the pilot project in

delay reduction, which is arguably the earliest visible success of the program. This included a

plan to dispose of pending cases. Chief justices of respective high courts endorsed the

extension of the pilot project to all courts throughout the country. Proposals were also

developed to revamp the process serving establishment agency, and to improve court relations



by introducing bench-bar and citizen-court liaison committees in every district. The delay

reduction project intended to introduce courts' automation plan which could provide a

blueprint for major improvements in information management capacity across the justice

sector. The training-of-trainers program at the Federal Judicial Academy was also worked out

for foundation of training capacity within the judiciary itself. Publication of the bench book to

provide a quality-assured practical tool for judges with extended shelf-life was also realized

under AJP. Revamping of courts statistical reporting system and the first publication of annual

performance reports for the courts in the past thirty years was also part of the plan.

The designers of the program rightly identified that judicial reforms should focus on two

sectors i.e. Justice Sector and Police Sector. It is interesting to note that reforms areas

identified by AJP were very much relevant to the requirements. The AJP pledged to overhaul

policy making in the justice sector by introducing steps to strengthen judiciary and by

empowering the poor and the vulnerable. There could be no difference of opinion when AJP

vouchsafed to introduce a transparent police force that vowed to foster better police citizen

relationship. In the light of these targets, access to inexpensive justice, people friendly police

and empowerment of the vulnerable and women in justice sector were identified as the three

main components of AJP.

Implementation Arrangements

Ministry of Law (MOL) was identified as the Implementing Agency for AJP and a Project

Management Unit (PMU) was formed to implement the program. The Program Director (PD)

of AJP was supposed to be a senior officer representing government side with the mandate to

implement the program. (RRP-ADB, 2001) According to the instructions it was required that

no government officer should be given dual charge for the post of PD and he would not be

transferred from that position in order to ensure effective implementation of the program. The

PD had a large team consisting of officers responsible to implement AJP. A team consisting of

professionals and experts hired by ADB were also there to assist the government team. A

National Steering Committee (NSC) stationed in MOL was responsible for oversight of the

activities under AJP.



Achievements

Following is the list of activities undertaken by AJP during the implementation of this justice

sector program. These activities have been described by ADB as their achievements.

Infrastructure Development In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

A sum of Rs.3459 million was utilized for renovation and construction of 110 Court Rooms

and 81 residences for judges in various districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. This construction

work in the District Courts in NWFP for District & Session Judges and Civil Judges was

commenced to “improve the working conditions of the lower judiciary”. This work also

includes construction of more than 150 litigant sheds, Bakhshi Khanas and lavatories in

various districts as public facilities for litigants and general public. Construction of six judicial

Complexes and two bar rooms was also part of infrastructure improvement efforts being

undertaken under the Program. The land for the judicial complexes in Hazara, Malakand,

Southern Region and Haripur was acquired with the expenditure of Rs.64 million. (DAWN,

2008)

Approximately Rs.400 million was spent on the establishment of new offices, barracks, and

renovation of infrastructure in police and prison departments. It included schemes such as

construction of 24 District Investigation Headquarters, Provision of Medico-legal wards,

Criminal Records Office, Construction of District Jail Hangu, lock-ups, guard-rooms,

Installation of Close Circuit Cameras in Prison Department and other projects concerning

improvement in access to justice and better services for the people.

Infrastructure Development in Baluchistan

As part of the financial plan, Balochistan was entitled to a share of Rs 1,140.8 million as per

NFC formulae, of which Rs 1056.0 million were set for budgetary allocation and Rs 1,008

million were released by AJP for works on uplift schemes in the province. In judiciary, total

18 schemes with an estimated cost of Rs 258 million were carried out. As part of this

financial plan, 35 court rooms and buildings, 27 residences for judicial officers, 16 litigant



sheds with amenities, a judicial complex and a bar room were constructed and money was

spent on the purchase of land for these works. The Police Department was also given Rs. 282

million establishment of new police lines, barracks and residential complexes for the police

officials. The Prisons Department had reserved Rs 247 million for the construction of 10

barracks, 12 death cells and 54 lodges for jail staffers. (Daily Times, 2008)

Infrastructure Development in Punjab

Punjab was projected as a leading province in implementation of the AJP. The achievements

included work on 410 construction schemes under the Program. Punjab was extended Rs.

6132 million under AJP and around 342 schemes were carried out with this amount. As part

of this plan, 178 Court rooms and buildings, 329 residences for judicial officers, 52 buildings

with amenities for litigants, 21 judicial complexes, 2 bar rooms, land acquisition at 8 places

and 8 projects for raising the capacity of departments with information technology equipment

were installed. (Nation, 2008)

The Police Department with its share of PKR.327 million focused on establishment of 14 new

Police Lines, 19 barracks and 13 residential complexes, 128 death cells, 64 residences for jail

staff, 17 lavatories and 2 high security jails. The Law Department Punjab also utilized Rs.94

million on various infrastructure schemes in the province. The Home department in the

province also spent Rs.13 million on the centralized automated record management on child

protection & data base for prisoners, crime situation, law and order.

Procurement of Computers

AJP procured 1461 computers for courts throughout the country under AJP. Hi-tech

Computers were procured after an international bidding for the automation of judiciary

throughout Pakistan. Out of this lot, 600 computers were distributed in all the courts in Punjab

whereas 317 machines were installed in courts in Sind. Similarly the share of NWFP and

Baluchistan for these digital equipments was 207 and 82 respectively. The computers were

also given to 67 Bar Associations around the country to enable Bars to fulfill their “mandated

responsibilities regarding legal matters”. (AJP Newsletter, 2008) The provision of computers



and other IT accessories to judiciary at a large scale was seen as an effort to improve

efficiency of the courts. Digitalization of courts as a result of this intervention was expected to

result in free and easy access to information for the common people concerning justice sector.

(AJP Annual Report, 2008)

Revamping of Police Training System

AJP had taken a resolve to revamp the police training system in Pakistan in line with reforms

introduced under New Police Order 2002. Ministry of Law and National Police Academy

reached an agreement to exploit capacity building provisions in AJP and entered the second

generation reforms. It may be recalled that first phase of reforms ‘focused’ on infrastructure

development of the judiciary and in the second phase focus was to target areas concerning

police, prisons and professional training institutes in order to build linkages with them and to

promote public grievance redress mechanism. (Khan,2005) In order to reach the objectives,

AJP decided to strengthen National Police Academy by providing them with computers and

forensic facility. Under this program 78 training modules were also prepared for police

officers by a Police Reforms Specialist.

Public Awareness

AJP spend millions of rupees on publishing a varied range of simplified material on legal

matters. The 227 booklets printed were meant for dissemination among the public and users of

justice sector. The documents focused on themes of legal education and empowerment of the

common people covering topics relevant to justice sector problems faced by the public in day

to day life. AJP also published and disseminated 25 guidelines for the people on issues such

as; how to acquire a National I D Card; how to register an FIR; how to register complaint

against highhandedness of police officials; laws about consumer rights; legal cover for the

rights of bonded labor and the like. (AJP Newsletter,2008)These booklets were written in

Urdu and effort was made to reach out to the common people and impart the legal information

through simplified messages. The material was disseminated at large scale through District



Councils, Tehsil Councils, Union Councils, libraries and Public Information Kiosks

established at District Courts.

The emphasis of this public awareness campaign was also on newly introduced police

reforms. Some attractive and informative posters were designed for people at the grassroots

level so that they could know about their rights in the civic and administrative system of the

government. These posters intended to educate the masses about information and procedures

for grievance redress under New Police Order such as Role of District Public Safety

Commission, Citizen Police Liaison Committee and mechanism of accountability of Police.

Mr.Azhar Hasan Nadeem, Inspector General of Police in Punjab had directed to display these

posters for public viewing in the Police Stations so that visitors may acquire information about

their rights and mechanism of accountability under Police Reforms.

Consumer Courts

Eight Consumers Courts were established in Punjab that was headed by District and Session

Judges. These courts established under the justice sector reform agenda were destined to play

positive and effective role in extending maximum relief to the public. The concept of setting

up consumer courts was to discourage the sub-standard articles of daily use and defective

services to the masses.

Access to Information

AJP aimed at empowering the citizens to get access to information in the light of Freedom of

Information Ordinance 2002. AJP understood that citizen’s inability to acquire timely and

accurate information hinders their claim to fundamental entitlements. AJP launched a

nationwide public campaign on right to freedom of information. This campaign aimed at

educating public to use their right to obtain information held by the public authorities. AJP’s

constant advocacy and lobbying with provincial governments and holding of activities with

concerned stakeholders moved the provincial governments to enact Freedom of Information

law. The Government of Balochistan enacted Freedom of Information Act 2005. This was

followed by promulgation of Freedom of Information Ordinance by Governor of Sindh. Later



Provincial Assembly, Sindh enacted the Ordinance into an Act in 2006. The Provinces of

Punjab and NWFP did not take part in this imperative legislation.

The AJP provided technical assistance in number of complementary actions to translate this

policy initiative into effective implementation to strengthen right to access to information.

Five capacity building workshops – one in Islamabad and four in provinces were held. The

participants include government officials of different departments, judicial officers,

representative from civil society organizations, journalists, lawyers, political activists, bank

officers, common people and students from universities and colleges. It also tried to dispel

official mindset used to hide public information by labeling it as classified, secret and

confidential. To further strengthen institutional mechanism computers were provided to the

courts along with designing and installation of information management system to facilitate

litigants’ as well legal community to take information about exact status of their cases.

Capacity Building

Capacity building has been the most misleading aspect of project implementation. It is worth

mentioning that Rs.77 million were spent in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province for the capacity

building of staff in courts of Additional and Session Judges and Rs.58 million were earmarked

for the up-gradation and improvement of Civil Courts in the Province. Under these schemes,

around 57 Additional Session Judges, 50 Civil Judges and more than 1242 sub-ordinate staff

was recruited. These courts have also been provided with computers and other necessities to

run the day to day affairs effectively.

Failures

Numerous local factors count much when a particular model of governance is being developed

and applied in a country (Rhudy,2000). In the case of AJP local realities were neither studied

thoroughly and nor were given a place in the strategy map. It resulted into a long list of

disappointments during the implementation of AJP reforms. Following is a discussion

summarizing some of the key problematic areas that surfaced during the AJP experience in

Pakistan.



Problems with Implementation Arrangements

Ministry of Law being the IA was responsible for results in line with the set targets. However

neither Minister for Law nor Secretary Law had enough time to dig deep into the details of

implementation of AJP. In eight years it was only once that Minister for Law chaired a

meeting on AJP. The Steering Committee could not meet regularly and usually its meeting

was called only in emergency matters. Most of the Steering Committee meetings were held in

2005 and 2006 when AJP had been flagged as ‘at risk’ program by the donors. In the initial

phase of implementation the approval of Judicial Commission comprising of Supreme Court

Judges gave approval for schemes being funded from Asian Development Fund Sources.

Those judges either had no time to dispose off cases in time or were very conservative and

careful in giving approvals. The PD was frequently changed and transferred from AJP and

there were occasions when AJP had no boss for longer periods. The officers appointed in AJP

from government side were incompetent and ineffective as they lacked competency. The ADB

consultants were more concerned in disbursement of loan money and they had not made an

effort to link the activities with set targets of AJP. The implementation arrangements for AJP

were not in line with the requirements of an ambitious program. The program started in 2001

and for five long years no body realized that AJP needed some arrangements to look after the

implementation of schemes in the respective provinces. It was only in 2005 that Provincial

Management Units of AJP were introduced in the country but it was too late. The damage has

already been done.

Focus on Construction Work

AJP received wide scale criticism on its focus on infrastructure development such as

residences for judges and offices. Infrastructure already available might not have been enough

but it was there. The analysts think that focus would have been on practical aspects of

governance in spite of on construction work which has no relation with the plight of the poor.

Same number of districts had same number of offices and courts even before AJP. It was

argued by the experts that Justice is not in the bricks and stones but in the mindset and just



sector reforms should have tried to change the perceptions and behavior of the stakeholders

like police and judges towards the beneficiaries of judicial system.

The equipment was also provided to digitalize major libraries in justice sector departments

such as Law Department, Home Departments and Offices of the Ombudsman. The idea was

to automate the police and justice sector by introducing automation of registration of Firs and

to link the proceeding of court with computers. But this brilliant idea could not be translated

into reality and expensive computers could only be used as typing machines.

Issues in Policy Making

AJP boasts of introducing amendments in Law Commission Ordinance 1979 as the most

visible achievement on policy making front. The ordinance only expanded the mandate and

composition of Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan by including Chief Justice of

Pakistan in it. AJP considers the introduction of National Judicial Policy Making Committee

(NJPMC) as its policy achievement. But ironically the inclusion of CJP in NJPMC was the

most important factor that resulted in slow progress of development schemes under AJP.

Target of AJP to revamp the justice sector policy was well set but tools employed and

activities undertaken to reach the target were highly controversial. AJP in fact miserably failed

in restructuring the justice sector in Pakistan for improving the service delivery for the poor

and vulnerable. Policy initiatives such as promulgation of ordinances about access to

information and dissemination of information about establishment of consumer courts were

projected as policy achievements. But one feels like asking as to what were the changes in

policy matters pertaining to procedures at courts and police stations that were introduced by

AJP during the implementation period of eight years. Were any structural changes introduced

for registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) at the police stations? Was access to courts

at the grass-root level made better for the poor and vulnerable? What mechanism was adopted

by AJP to ensure inexpensive justice for the disadvantageous groups in the light of its self-set

targets? The answer is a big NO. None of the areas were touched and no effort was made

under AJP to change the structure and improve the efficiency of justice sector in Pakistan.



Judicial Independence

ADB’s Completion Report about AJP states that good progress was made to ensure

independence of judiciary in Pakistan. The Project Completion Report (PCR, 2010) further

explains that budgetary allocations for the federal level and the provincial levels were

increased for the purpose. At federal level the budget for SC was increased from Rs.466

million in 2001 to Rs.926 million in 2008. Similarly provincial budgets were given an

increase by 18%. Is increasing finances a guarantee for an independent judiciary? Was this a

well worked out target? The ADB report does not however explains that this increase

expenditure was spent on enhanced salaries of the judges and on purchase of vehicles. This

“strengthened and independent” judiciary was sent home by General Pervez Musharraf in

2008 by sheer use of force and there was no mechanism in place to safeguard the secure

presence of justice system in the political economy of the country. Even at the lower level

simple separation of judiciary from executive was termed as the independence of judiciary

which was in fact wrong. The separation of judiciary from the executive may be a step in the

right direction but no institutional arrangements were suggested and introduced by AJP to

handle the pressure faced by the lower courts. Simple flow of funds for schemes that had no

relevance with the fate of the poor could not help at all.

Provision of Inexpensive Justice?

It is interesting to note the way AJP connects its ‘achievements’ with the ‘empowerment ‘of

poor. ADB thinks that their effort resulted in clearance of backlog of cases all around the

country. They quote their own generated reports and say that as a result of case management

reforms, judges disposed of around 25% more cases than before and this efficiency of courts

was termed as equivalent to 0.5% growth in GDP. ADB seems to be of the view that this

fiscal benefit has automatically been passed on to the poor and the vulnerable as they explain

this efficiency under their target of ‘ensuring inexpensive justice.’ According to studies

(Armytage, 2003) CJP Mr.Iftikhar Chaudahry himself had been the cause of clearance of

backlog of 80000 cases who had put all the judges in the country on their toes by increasing



monitoring. AJP’s claim to link it with provision of inexpensive justice seems interesting and

speaks volumes of how AJP was handled by its team of professionals.

ADB’s AJP had introduced some legislative changes in filing of habeas corpus applications

and amendments in Civil Procedure Code of 1908. Although the initiatives are welcome but

ADB’s claim that these changes resulted in provision of better access for the vulnerable

needed to be supported by some statistics. Up till this time no study has been undertaken

either by GOP or by ADB to testify the implications of the amendments made under AJP in

the name improved access to justice system. The most propagated arrangement for

inexpensive justice was the introduction of “Musalihat Anjumun” (MA) that was to be

operationalized at Union Council level. This was an alternate arrangement for dispute

resolution for the people but ADB itself admits that MAs could not be operationalized as

envisioned under AJP.

Empowering the Poor and Vulnerable

It is recognized that inability to access to justice is the most obvious sign of inequality in

society. (Abregu,2001) AJP tried to empower the poor and vulnerable by publishing booklets

and pamphlets on various legal and procedural matters pertaining to courts and police. In a

country where literacy rate for men is 65% whereas only 45% of women are literate, the

decision to publish information booklets required qualification. Most important of all, it

needed a justification whether it would really empower the major population of the country or

not who are illiterate and have no access to published materials. More sad part of the story is

that all the list of publications for empowering the people were published only in the last year

of AJP implementation only to meet the targets set as exercise. The books and pamphlets were

bundled in big bags and posted to District Coordination Officers all over Pakistan for

circulation in the government agencies and offices. They never reached those for whom they

were published i.e. the poor and the vulnerable. People waiting on the broken wooden

benches in the police station courtyards were waiting for perhaps something else that AJP

could not capture in their scheme of things.



Judicial Governance

The institutional obstacles in legal and judicial system of the developing countries have been

the major cause of poor governance. (Anderson, 2003) When AJP talked about improving

judicial governance, people at the lower strata of life thought that now measure would be

taken to ensure that no official will extort money from the litigants and complainants and that

only a simple application would set the court system to process his request for grievance

redressal . However to our astonishment, activities undertaken by ADB in the name of judicial

governance were quite different. Under this head, the judicial officers were offered three times

rise in salaries and allowances and this exercise was unanimously agreed and adopted by GOP

and ADB both. While judges qualified for new residences, renovated offices, new cars and

enhanced salaries, police continued to extort money from the seekers of justice.

Human Resource Development

ADB states that there biggest achievement in order to develop the human resources under AJP

was to help open a Law School at Lahore University of Management Science (LUMS).The

said university is a leading private sector university where millionaire students can only afford

to get admission and study. Similarly, development of some manuals and courses was

undertaken for the Federal Judicial Academy (FJA) but unfortunately those manuals could not

get clearance from the judges until the closure of AJP. Human resource development at FJA

could therefore only be restricted to investment in renovation of office, building and library.

ADB’s project documents are silent about any component that focused on the training of the

trainers at FJA.

Ensuring Accountability in Police

AJP’s endeavor was to “ensure an independent, accountable transparent and professional

police”. It is acknowledged by the analysts that adoption of Police Order 2002 by GOP was

the landmark decision that could have transformed the working of police department in favor

of the people. However one very fundamental mistake has already been done by the National

Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) in this regard. Firstly, they tried to take complete inspiration



from the British model and did not take into account the local expediencies and secondly they

tried to implement the new Police Order through the Police Officers themselves who knew the

tricks to maneuver the rules and provisions in their favor. The police officers had already

become all the more powerful after the dissolution of the institution of Deputy Commissioner

in the district. The vague and intricate schematization of oversight offered in Police Order

2002 made police department independent but in no way accountable. AJP exclaims that

establishment of Public Safety Commissions (PSCs) at federal, provincial and district level

represented by the public representatives was a great success. It would have been a huge

achievement if these oversight bodies had actually become operational. Almost in all the

provinces there were disagreements on the selection of members of PSCs and complaints

about non-serious attitude of police officers towards the observations of PSCs became a

common phenomenon. At national level National Public Safety Commission could not even

become operational. The dismal performance of PSCs has been a sad story in the era of

decentralization when AJP was given the responsibility to make police a people friendly

department. Departments do not change cultures and mindset under the influence of

ordinances and AJP without realizing the ground realities continued to measure their

performance in terms of findings of seminars and workshops.

Independent Prosecution

According to the legislation under Police Order 2002, independent prosecution department

was established to ensure transparent trials. Previously investigation and prosecution used to

be handled by the same officers in police stations. The separation of both the departments

must have been a brilliant idea but it did not work in Pakistan well at least till the closure of

AJP. There were huge differences among the provinces over the implementation of this Police

Order and even differences among the police officials continuously surfaced during the period.

A workshop of police officers conducted in Faisalabad in June 2008 concluded that separation

has created more confusion among the beneficiaries as well as the police officers. It was

pointed out that separation of the two branches has created disconnect between the officers

working under the same roof resulting in communication gaps.



Creation of Independent Complaint Authority

The right to get legal protection is the test of government’s commitment to rights of the people

(Harshcoff & Hollander, 2000) Establishment of independent complaint authorities was

another ‘ideal’ situation visualized by AJP without taking into account the ground realities.

The target set by AJP was only to announce the establishment of complaint authorities but

evaluation of the application of this philosophy was entrusted to no one. Interestingly the

complaint authorities were merged in Public Safety Commissions which were already

ineffective. The process of making a complaint was simple; an application on a plain paper

against any police officer could initiate actions against him. But did it work? Did the head of

public safety commissions ever initiated cases against police officers on general complaints?

The answer is in negative. The weak pubic representatives lacked the sinews to challenge the

authority and power of the police officers even if there was a complaint against them. The

chairman of the PSC could only request the District Police Officer to initiate action against the

offender police officials but nothing more than this. Under the law DPO was not obliged to

ensure implementation on the recommendation of the Chairman of PSC. Even the statistics

show that entirely insignificant number of complaints was registered against the police during

this time and this happened in the country which is known as the police state. In this backdrop,

it is unjustified on the part of AJP to claim the creation of ‘independent complaint authority’

as one of their landmark achievements.

Fostering better Police Citizen Relationship

ADB had tied the release of third tranche of AJP loan amounting to $9,764,808,000 with

government’s efforts to foster Police-Citizen relationship. AJP’s main plan revolved around

Citizen Police Liaison Committees(CPLCs) and main inspiration was taken from the

successful experience of Karachi’s City Police Liaison Committee that has been delivering

since long and that too independent of any effort connected with AJP. GOP failed to muster

up enough support for replication of CPLCs in all the districts of the country. They in fact

categorically refused to legislate on this matter of high importance. Interesting part of the

story is that ADB accepted the logic forwarded by GOP that legislation on CPLCs cannot be



made. In order to fulfill the condition a Media and Communication Specialist was hired for

only two months and that too only two months before the closing the loan date just to register

that efforts to improve citizen police relationship were being done by AJP. As a result of this

‘achievement’, ADB released the third tranche of loan, badly needed by the government that

faced financial constraints at that time.

Raising Human Rights Awareness

Legal empowerment is giving the people relevant skills and awareness to access institutions

for grievance redress (Singh, 2009). AJP’s list of achievement vaunts about the role they

played in raising human rights awareness during the implementation of program. Details on

the activities undertaken for this awareness campaign are nowhere to be seen in ADB’s

Project Completion Report. According to an inside information, no exclusive activities were

designed or implemented by ADB or even GOP under the umbrella of AJP. In fact, material

such as posters, booklets and pamphlets designed by the media and communication specialist

is being referred under various topics as cross-cutting thematic activity. ADB used this two

month activity to show achievement in connection with themes such as fostering citizen-

police relationship, raising human rights awareness and even gender empowerment. The

reality is the AJP only produced two posters projecting the importance of women police in

society. This published material was supposed to be circulated among all police stations and

union councils for display. According to the sources, those pamphlets, booklets and posters

were never circulated by AJP till the closure of the loan in 2008.

Gender empowerment

A good combination of Law, social justice and development can only help improve the

condition of women in the developing countries (Dasgupta,2002). While commenting on their

achievement’s on the issue of ‘gender empowerment’, AJP states that during the period of

implementation of program, the number of “share of women judges in the lower courts

increased from 3.67% to 5.76% in the Punjab, from 5.88% to 11.90% in Balochistan, from

7.61% to 13.72% in NWFP, and from 7.30% to 15.45% in Sindh”. They also add that five



women police stations were set and a considerable number of women were recruited as traffic

wardens in the light of this initiative. AJP, however is silent as to what statistical impact these

initiatives had on empowering the common women in the society. Some empirical evidence

should have suggested the connection between AJP initiative on recruiting women judges and

women traffic police and social development indicators pertaining to crime and harassment of

women in the society. It is not difficult to understand that ADB considered the activities

undertaken by their consultants as the benchmarks and in real no change actually took place in

society as a result of this multi-million dollar justice sector program. (Yasin and Shah, 2004)

Failure in extension of TA Loan

The TA Loan for AJP could have played a very important role in implementation of the whole

justice sector reform. But lack of vision, strategy and leadership rendered the program useless.

It has been argued by the experts that ‘good practice should focus on the needs of the people

at the beginning of the criminal justice system (Penal Reform International, 2006). However

AJP started by focusing on the end products first. Their main focus was on improving

visibility and infrastructure and not on the procedural requirements at the police stations and

civil and criminal courts. The Technical Assistance Loan should have ideally started much

ahead of the actual loan as its responsibility was to prepare a feasibility study and an

implementation plan for the justice sector reformation in Pakistan. But in this case TA Loan

team could not be in place in time. The disbursements for loan started ahead of activities in

TA Loan and it was like proverbial putting the cart before the horse. It is interesting to note

that this TA Loan was being provided at 1% interest rate and was considered the most

important portion of AJP that was to serve as the nervous system for AJP exercise. However,

AJP activities under TA Loan failed to kick off in time and failed to culminate in time. The

sad part of the story is that the AJP team even failed to utilize the soft loan for its key

activities and could only spend $8 million out of $20 million earmarked by ADB. There was a

large scale criticism even inside ADB because of non-utilization of TA Loan and ADB

decided to withdraw remaining $12 million on 30 June 16, 2008 closing the program activities

altogether. Pakistan’s law minister wrote a letter to President ADB requesting to give



extension to TA Loan so that ongoing activities can be finished but the request of the minister

was not considered. TA loan was important because its objective was also to provide support

to the actual $330 million program loan which is scheduled to end in June 2011. AJP left all

the activities in the mid-way and decided to close all the initiatives pertaining to the

‘revolution’ of revamping the justice sector in Pakistan.

Role of ADB in AJP

ADB termed their own performance in AJP as ‘partly successful’ (PCR-ADB, 2009). The

targets set by ADB were too good to be implemented. The benchmarks set by ADB only

counted the number of activities undertaken and it did not take into account the results and

effects of AJP interventions. International financial institutions are mainly concerned with the

disbursement issue and even on this account the ADB team could not deliver. ADB did not

made any objections for time constraint and lack of vision on desired targets at the time of

signing of Loan Agreement. All along the period ranging from 2001 to 2008, the role of ADB

has been intriguing. They continuously closed their eyes towards the incompetence of GOP

and ADB consultants and kept on releasing the tranches required by the government without

much hassle. But as soon as the money lent on market rate was dispersed, ADB became

disinterested in continuing giving any leverage on the fund flowing from the ADF window.

They disbursed the costly loan and suspended the soft loan and that is how they managed the

resources under AJP. Role of an international organization in today’s world must be to enable

the disadvantaged groups to become more self-sufficient (McClymont,2000) but ADB could

not come up to the expectations in the case of AJP.

Role of Government

Justice sector in developing countries is too much ‘state centered and donor

driven’(Golub,2003).Basically the burden of responsibility of failing AJP falls on the

shoulders of GOP and not on ADB. It was the responsibility to ensure effective measures for

management of resources under this program which they started to empower the poor and

vulnerable people. They were required to build a comprehensive plan to materialize the



desires of the common people who have been victims of mal-administration of police and

courts. It was them who had to see and decide as to what was required for overhauling the

justice sector of Pakistan. But all this happened now where for the simple reason that GOP

was only interested in getting fiscal space to finance their public sector development projects.

There was no national plan in place to reform the justice sector in the country. The program

was used to indirectly please the judges in all tiers of hierarchy without looking into the

details as to what effects non-developmental expenditure under AJP will have on the country’s

feeble economy. Governments should be made answerable under the law for faulty designing

of projects and programs. Governments should also understand that budgetary support should

not be understood as an easy way to secure funds and proper care should be taken in

identifying the targets and activities financed under programs.

Conclusion

Lack of vision and profound strategy to introduce reforms in the justice sector of Pakistan

resulted in failure of reforms under AJP. The program was introduced by General Pervez

Musharraf who ironically himself had inflicted damage to the constitution by imposing Legal

Framework Order (LFO) in 2000 and by suspending all the judges of high courts and Supreme

Court in 2008. AJP’s scheme of things did not touch country’s judicial system, rather focused

on construction of infrastructure as if the country was in the stone age era and had no offices

and courts altogether. The bureaucratic set up and infrastructure available in Pakistan has

already been huge and mere focus on bricks and barracks was a sheer waste of money. The

real policy areas needed to be worked out but all the recommendations of AJP failed because

no consensus was developed before introducing them in the country. The issue of improving

performance of police and judges could have given results if only monitoring mechanism had

been bettered. One example that has been widely noticed by the people is the judicial

efficiency of courts in Azad Kashmir; an autonomous territory in Pakistan. The Chief Justice

of Azad Kashmir installed one fax machine in his office and asked all the judges under his

jurisdiction to fax him the details of disposal of cases on daily basis. He personally monitored

the disposal of cases and within six months all the territory’s trial cases that had been pending



since thirty years, were disposed of without the help of AJP. AJP with their $350 million

could not even achieve this in Pakistan. Streamline of procedures in justice sector could have

been achieved if there was an effort to change the mindset. But in the case of AJP, neither

judicial officers nor the government and nor ADB showed their concern about poor and the

vulnerable. Judicial officers thought that justice sector can only be improved if they are

provided with renovated offices and new brand cars. The government was more concerned

about budgetary support than in the justice sector reforms. And similarly ADB thought it a

wonderful opportunity to introduce first ever justice sector reforms in the country by

extending funds from their Ordinary Capital Resource Window. AJP was just a name given to

a budgetary support program readily available from a donor to prop up the economy

dwindling in the hands of a military ruler. The mechanism to ensure effective utilization of

budgetary support remained absent during the process and ultimately resulted in failure of

justice sector reforms in Pakistan.

To conclude the argument, it would be suffice to say that ‘a renewed anti-poverty agenda is

needed to include the majority of world population in the system of rights and obligations that

foster prosperity’ (UNDP,2008). It is therefore the responsibility of the respective

governments to own their mistakes and prepare themselves for a better future for the coming

generations. Ideally speaking ‘government’s commitment should be assessed before Banks

agree to finance’ a judicial reform proposal (Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, 2000)

and in the case of AJP it did not happen at all.



References Appendix - I

Fact Finding Mission Report, (2001), ADB Document. Manila, Phillipines.

Report and Recommendation of the President (RRP),(2001). ADB Document. Manila Phillipines.

Khan, M. S. (2005) The Denial of Justice—the Cost. Unpublished paper.

Van Puymbroeck, R. V. (ed.) 2003. The World Bank Legal Review

Sadiq.F.K (2001) The Way Forward: Access and Dispensation of Justice, Policy Paper. Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Abregu, M. 2001, 'Barricades or Obstacles: The Challenges of Accessible Justice', in R. V. Puymbroeck, (ed) Comprehensive Legal and Judicial Developments: Towards an Agenda for a Just and Equitable Society in the 21st Century', World Bank, Washington DC.

Anderson, M. (2003), 'Access to Justice and Legal Process: Making Legal Institutions Responsive to Poor People in LDCs', comment paper on access to justice and legal process, paper for discussion at WDR Meeting,16-17 August 1999.

Singh, A., ed.,(2009), ‘Strengthening Governance Through Access to Justice’, PHI Learning, New Dehli

UNDP,(2008), ‘Making the Law Work for Everyone’, Report of the Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor, United Nations Development Programme, New York. Volume 1

Golub, S.,(2003), 'Beyond the Rule of Law Orthodoxy: The Legal Empowerment Alternative', Democracy and the Rule of Law Project, Rule of Law Series No. 41, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

McClymont, M. and Golub, S. (2000), 'Nonlawyers as Legal Resources for their Communities', in Many Roads to Justice, Ford Foundation.

Rhudy, R, (2000), 'Expanding Access to Justice: Legal Aid Models for Latin America', chapter 2 in 'Justice Beyond Our Border, Inter-american Development Bank, Washington DC.

Open Society Justice Initiative, (2004), 'Justice Initiatives: Legal Aid Reform and Access to Justice', February 2004 Issue, Open Society Justice Initiative, New York



Hershkoff, H. and Hollander D. (2000), 'Rights into Action: Public Interest Litigation in the United States,' in M. McClymount and S. Golub (eds.) Many Roads to Justice, Ford Foundation.

Dasgupta, M.,(2002), 'Social Action for Women? Public Interest Litigation in India's Supreme Court,' Law, Social Justice and Global Development Review, 2002, No. 1

Websites

www.adb.org

www.dailytimes.com.pk

www.dawn.com

www.nation.com

It is widely believed that International Financial Institutions do not assess the commitment of client countries before extending heavy loans to them in the form of budgetary support. This results in failure of projects and programs that otherwise could have contributed in the social and economic uplift of the country as well as the people. Access to Justice Program in Pakistan is a recent example. The justice sector policy reform program was financed by Asian Development Bank in 2001. It failed to produce desired results and the burden of responsibility seems to fall on both the government as well as ADB. This paper takes into account the details of the donor driven program to deliberate on reasons that contributed in the failure of a high profile program in Pakistan.

Documents

Why did Access to Justice Program Fail in Pakistan?