Sitemap

Preface

Thank you for visiting this archival site. Hope you find whatever you are looking for….. For the author this is now a closed chapter. Every scrap of information that I had, has been posted here, except for my working papers, correspondence, notes etc. The hard copy records, books, even files were donated to Baydil Library at the Sharfabad Community Center in Karachi, and may still be available for public as reference material.

Description and purpose of site

Contact with many HR organization and Lawyers all over English speaking world and particularly Pakistan was fruitless. In the end the law faculty of the Aligadh Muslim University agreed to write the first draft of the petition. Our organization provided the necessary resources, such as Pakistan’s constitution with commentaries, and Pakistan’s code of civil procedure. They promptly drafted the petition. Our petition contained all of the desired legal points, in the most appropriate order but without precedents. Through Bar Association Libraries in Karachi the author supported every assertion and statement with precedents. These are contained in a tabular form under folder Legal Research.

Hearty thanks to The Open Society Justice Initiative, New York, provided a financial grant, encouragement and an Amicus Curie, titled STRANDED PAKISTANIS: PAKISTAN’S RESPONSIBILITIES TO HER CITIZENS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality

Prevalence and Historical Evolution of Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality: Forced Migrations-Relocation, Evictions, Expulsion, Banishment

The Story of Supreme Court petition

During author’s research a paper titled “Stateless Refugees and their Right to Return: Responsibility of Former and Successor states”, was discovered. This paper was authored by Mr. Sumit Sen, at London School of Economics and published in International Journal of Refugee law (Oxford University Press). We requested the author to create an Amicus brief titled “Stranded Pakistanis and their Right to Return”.
Under guidance of Prof. Robert Golten, Ms. Jazmin Chavez at Human Rights Centre, Wyoming University College of Law prepared the third brief concluding article 16A of the Citizenship Act of Pakistan 1951 (Mar 18, 1978) as being unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary, devoid of due process, attempt at mass deprivation of nationality (Ethnic Cleansing).
An additional paper based on Pakistan’s violation of Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), by Katharine Allen (Attorney at Law) Pennsylvania, USA. Khawar Mahmood Khattana, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan. Reproduced here, but could not be appended to the main petition on account of its late arrival.

Through Bar Association Libraries in Houston, Texas, and Karachi the author supported every assertion and statement with precedents. These are contained in a tabular form for the petition.
After contacting several SC lawyers in Pakistan there seemed no prospect of successfully filing or pleading the case. Author decided to take early retirement, returned to Pakistan to file the case Pro se. Case was actually filed on March 24, 2010. It took 7 years of research (2003-2010), visit to half a dozen subscriptions to many online services to prepare the case.
At this point we learned of another case filed by Rashid Ul Haq Qazi, in sept 2009 on behalf of a citizen Dr. Khurshid Hassan, of Abbotabad. We obtained a copy of the filing it was well over 200 pages, petition made many emotional appeals but contained no legal arguments.
The SCP under leadership of Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry came up with lame excuses to not hear either case or respond to any correspondence about this matter. The case was dismissed without hearing with frivolous rationale. A CMA was filed, and strenuous efforts undertaken to implore a hearing from the court. Only a statistician can determine how many frivolous su moto actions were entertained by court during tenure of Justice Iftikhar Choudhry.
Stranded Pakistani case was taken up by the SC, in April 2015, with Justice Saqib Nisar presiding. The counsel for the petitioner failed on account of no legal arguments, failure to effectively answer legal non-issues raised by the federation. This author never received a notification of hearing, was occupied with other matters of personal and crucial nature overseas.

Introduction to Statelessness

Who is Stateless? Any person who is not considered a citizen under the operation of the laws of any State. Formal citizenship of a state allows one to participate in the political, economic and cultural life of one’s country on an equal footing with all other citizens. Many amenities are provided by the state (and various levels of government). Without citizenship one cannot lay claim to any of those amenities nor can one go to another source to obtain the same services.

Citizenship of a State is so fundamental to the need of all persons that it has been enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All States that are members of the United Nations Organization agree to follow the declaration. The convention on the rights of the child also states that every child is entitled upon birth to a minimum of two things first a name and then a nationality. Pakistan and Bangladesh both are signatories to both of these conventions.
No one is guaranteed anything in life. Every one of us must struggle and make a life for ourselves as best as we can with what we have. What is so objectionable, when trapped in circumstances of Statelessness is those afflicted with it, are not able to break away from it by their own efforts alone. At worst Statelessness is akin to slavery, at best it is like being an illegal alien, except the illegal aliens can always return to their country but stateless have no country. Like the most important things in life it is difficult to appreciate the importance of citizenship until one loses it, and then it is too late.
General paraphrasing of the rules that govern citizenship in most countries might help. All governments have framed rules as to who is a citizen and who is not. The individual must himself or herself determine who he or she is. This is termed as the right of self-determination. Based on domicile, shared language and culture, bonds of kinship or religion everyone has the right to identify with one or more countries as their country of citizenship.
When a new state is created all of the inhabitants in the territory of the new state become the citizens of the new state unless they choose otherwise implicitly or explicitly. A citizen has the right to enter or leave his country. Citizens may rescind their citizenship at any time with out assigning any reason. However a state cannot deprive a citizen of his nationality without notice, and without due process of law. Further a state cannot deprive a group of their citizenship unless the state files a case against each individual of a violation of law, which is punishable by denial of nationality. Suppose you were an American guilty of murder, you may get the death penalty or life in prison depending on the circumstances of your case, but you most certainly can not be stripped of your nationality.

If a newborn child was found in a country, and the name and nationality of the parents of the baby was unknown, then she must be accorded the citizenship of the country where she was found. Even if you were to renounce your nationality you will not lose it, until you have acquired another nationality. One does not lose one’s nationality on account of have been away too long. Contrary to beliefs in some cultures or countries one’s domicile is one’s country of habitual residence and is not attached in any manner shape or form to a local language, region, village, city or place of birth, race, religion or ownership of land or property.
You may personally dislike certain groups of individuals on grounds of language, religion what have you, however the state must not deny anyone’s nationality on any basis except that they have violated the terms of the nationality law. One group in society may feel hard done by another group. This cannot be the basis of denial of nationality either. In this case the grievances of each group should be addressed but not at the expense of the rights of another group of individuals.
Suppose Sindhis feel that Urdu speaking have usurped their rights or have caused them pain or suffering. In that case such claims should be investigated, circumstances causing this outcome may be altered in the present, and must not be allowed to reoccur in the future, some compensatory measures may be required to restore balance and justice in the availability of opportunities for all citizens. The one thing law cannot do and must not do is to punish members of a group with in its citizenry based on a common characteristic such as religion, language, age, income etc. Law can be used only to punish persons, that is you and I or legal persons such as corporations, societies or their officers.
Statelessness is indeed an affliction as bad as slavery and must be wiped from the face of the earth. Your citizenship is indeed one of the most assets.
Through out the history many governments have used exile or arbitrary deprivation of nationality as a tool to exclude unpopular and often innocent minorities of language, color, religion or political opinion. If you want your world to be a world of laws then you must join us in opposing the abuse of laws by any country including Bangladesh and Pakistan. If justice isn’t done to others, it won’t be done to us.