<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" version="2.0"><channel>
                        <title>The Express Tribune</title>
                        <atom:link href="https://tribune.com.pk/feed/pmcontempt" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
                        <link>https://tribune.com.pk/feed/pmcontempt</link>
                        <description>The Express Tribune keeps you up to date with all the latest happenings from Pakistan and across the world!</description>
                        <lastBuildDate>Sun, 31 May 26 09:36:18 +0500</lastBuildDate>
                        <language>en-US</language>
                        <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
                        <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
                        <generator>https://laravel.com/</generator><item>
			<title>Swiss letter: Coalition partners to accompany PM Ashraf to SC</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/438265/swiss-letter-coalition-partners-to-accompany-pm-ashraf-to-sc-tomorrow</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/438265/swiss-letter-coalition-partners-to-accompany-pm-ashraf-to-sc-tomorrow#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 12 20:04:07 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[web.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=438265</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[PM Raja Pervez Ashraf to appear before SC on September 18.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and their coalition partners threw their weight behind Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf ahead of his appearance before the Supreme Court on Tuesday September 18.

Express News correspondent Waqar Satti reported that the meeting at the Aiwan-e-Sadr discussed the National Reconciliation Ordinance and the matter of writing the letter to Swiss courts, for which the Prime Minister will appear in the Supreme Court on September 18.

Satti said that according to sources, the coalition partners and the ruling party have agreed to present their stance in a forceful manner before the apex court during the hearing.

Quoting a press release, Satti said that in a show of solidarity, all coalition partners will accompany the Prime Minister as he appears before the court for the hearing.

Sources, Satti said, told him that during the meeting President Zardari reiterated that the government and its coalition partners have sacrificed for the judiciary and have always respected the courts, and they will continue in the same vein.

The meeting of ruling coalition parties was held with President Asif Ali Zardari in the chair. Prime Minister and heads of allied parties attended the meeting.


Earlier‚ Ashraf called on President Zardari and discussed important issues.

The meeting was attended among others by Deputy Prime Minister, Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed, Basharat Raja of PML(Q), Asfandyar Wali Khan, Senator Afrasiab Khattak of ANP, Dr Farooq Sattar, Senator Babar Khan Ghouri of MQM, Senator Mir Israrullah Khan Zehri of BNP, Hameedullah Jan Afridi, Munir Khan Orakzai and Senator Abbas Khan Afridi of FATA.

Former Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani, Law Minister, Senator Farook H. Naek, Minister for Water and Power, Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar, Ms. Mehreen Anwar Raja and Senator Farhatullah Babar were also present during the meeting.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>To write or not to write...</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/429155/to-write-or-not-to-write-2</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/429155/to-write-or-not-to-write-2#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 12 16:41:30 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[amina.jilani]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=429155</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[If Swiss letter is written, will the heavens fall, will the president be stripped of his preciously guarded immunity?]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The saga, drama, case, issue — or whatever one wishes to dub it — of the Supreme Court and the prime ministerial letter has reached a definite low, and the longer it is prolonged, the lower will be the descent. It is all also somewhat reminiscent of the old story of the boy and the wolf.

Shots on the television screens of prime ministers arriving at the hallowed apex Court no longer provide excitement or even much interest. It’s all old hat. As an editorial in the press had it, commenting on the difference between the Yousaf Raza Gilani and the Raja Pervaiz Ashraf appearances, “the three-ring circus of spectacular proportions has degenerated into an almost-pitiful sideshow”. All this latest appearance actually did was to highlight the indignity involved in public appearances of those that have managed the route up into high places. The pushing, shoving, jostling of the companions and ‘admirers’ to get close to the leading actor and be picked up by the cameras is hardly edifying in any way to any of them. It seems that all would do well — on the showing — in rugby scrum half.

But then, pushing, shoving and jostling is very much part of life in the republic, whether it involves those known as VVIPs or simply VIPs or the general public. It happens on the steps of the apex Court in the same manner as it happens at weddings or other such functions when the buffet table is unveiled.

Anyhow, the letter business needs to be brought to a closure, however it is done. To the layperson, it really seems to be a simple matter. Just write the letter to the Swiss authorities telling them that the Malik Qayyum letter stands withdrawn, cancelled, annulled or whatever, that it should lawfully have not been written. That this present prime minister needs almost three weeks to consult with his legal wizards as to whether to write or not to write seems farcical. But then, none of the legal minds which have been applied to the matter, whether involved with the government or not, can even mutually agree on the constitutionality of writing, though the Supreme Court is clear in its combined mind.

And one must ask that if the letter is written, merely giving the bare bones, will the heavens fall, will the president of the republic be stripped of his preciously guarded immunity, will the government, which is hardly a government, vanish into thin air or will the Swiss accept the withdrawal and let it go at that? Amidst all the convoluted implications set forth by the prime ministerial team, none seems clear on how the immunity will be affected. As far as can be garnered, it will be there with the president for as long as he remains in that position. All things, good or bad, come to an end at some point, so Asif Ali Zardari will have to reconcile himself to the fact that the probability is that somewhere along the line, he will cease to be a head of state. He will have to just take his chances when that dreaded day comes.

Or, as has been mooted this past week, is there a limitation bar under Swiss law which could come into effect this month? Some seem to think so, others not.

And if the wretched letter is not written, what alternatives are there? Will the Court continue to extend the deadline ad infinitum, or will successive prime ministers of the republic play a never-ending round of musical chairs? Or will one side blink. And if so, which one?

There is one clear mind that opens up to the press frequently and sticks to its guns. Oracle Aitzaz Ahsan is adamant that there is no middle path; that the Court has no option but to press on as it is doing; and that prime ministers will come and go until March.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 1st, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>NRO implementation: PM wins reprieve</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/427217/nro-implementation-pm-wins-reprieve</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/427217/nro-implementation-pm-wins-reprieve#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 12 21:22:56 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[azam.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=427217</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Apex court gives PM Ashraf until Sept 18 to write Swiss letter; PM assures ‘genuine and serious’ steps will be...]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Monday was a day of conciliatory gestures with the Supreme Court allowing Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf some elbow room to navigate a way out of the Swiss letter writing controversy and the government promising to preserve the superior judiciary’s sanctity and respect.


At least temporarily, PM Ashraf has escaped the fate of his deposed predecessor Yousaf Raza Gilani. On Monday, Ashraf was given a lifeline of 22 more days to ensure that the court ruling on the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) was implemented through the opening of graft cases against the president.

Although he wore a black sherwani similar to former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s attire on April 26 at the time of his unseating from parliament, Ashraf’s demeanour was not the same as that of his predecessor. Instead, his appearance mirrored the almost seismic shift in the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party’s (PPP) stance. The supreme judiciary was assured that the letter, if written, would request the reopening of outstanding graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari and pledged that the sanctity and respect of the court would be preserved at all costs.

Subsequently, the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court – headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa – gave Prime Minister Ashraf until September 18 to appear before the court and come good on his assurances.

Assisted by several members of the cabinet, the law minister, deputy prime minister and senior party leaders at the Supreme Court premises, Premier Ashraf admitted to the mounting pressure of the Supreme Court and said that he now wanted to resolve the issue in a way that the dignity of the court could be preserved.

“I want to become role model. It is an honour for me to appear before the court today,” said Ashraf while insisting that he did not want to besmirch his name and figure in an ugly chapter of the country’s history.

“Being a political worker and a law abiding citizen, I want to ensure that the judiciary is respected. It is also the requirement of my office that respect of the judiciary be preserved.”

Former premier Gilani was tried, convicted and disqualified in the same case when he failed to ensure the implementation of court orders of writing a letter, as mentioned in paragraph 178 of the NRO judgment of the Supreme Court.

During Monday’s hearing, Justice Khosa appreciated the prime minister’s appearance before the court and told him: “The case of your predecessor is before you and we only want to see the implementation of our judgment, since real respect for the court is ensured by the implementation of its judgments.”

“Give us a positive commitment today, otherwise the law will take its course,” he told Ashraf.

The bench explained the court orders again and said that it only wanted the federal government to revoke former attorney general Malik Qayyum’s correspondence with the Swiss authorities after the NRO was declared illegal.

“It is up to you to give a new topic for discussion to the nation by resolving this issue,” Justice Khosa told him. “We don’t want to see you again and again in the court in this case and we are also not interested in unseating public representatives”.

In response, Premier Ashraf told the Supreme Court that he required at least four to six weeks to consult his legal team and allies to resolve the issue. “You gave Gilani four and half years to implement the ruling, and I have been a prime minister for just 60 days,” he said.

However, Justice Khosa retorted that the government had little choice in the matter because ultimately court rulings “must be implemented”.

Initially, the court wanted PM Ashraf to follow through on its order within two weeks but when the premier informed the bench of his impending tour of China the hearing was adjourned until Sept 18.

Justice Khosa replied that according to Article 90 of the Constitution, the premier could exercise executive authority and authorise someone else to implement the orders of writing the letter, be it the law minister or the attorney general. However, the premier said: “I am only a political worker and not a lawyer. I need to understand the case in order to resolve it.” He also requested the court to withdraw the show-cause notice issued against him in the case.

At the same time, the prime minister said that he wanted to resolve the case, not prolong it.

(Read: The case of the Swiss letter)

Published in The Express Tribune, August 28th, 2012. ]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>NRO hearing: PM Ashraf given respite till September 18</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/426809/nro-hearing-pm-ashraf-arrives-at-sc</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/426809/nro-hearing-pm-ashraf-arrives-at-sc#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 12 04:12:37 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[sidrah.moiz]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=426809</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[PM Ashraf had requested the Supreme Court that he required at least four to six weeks to resolve the issue.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Accepting Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf's request, the Supreme Court on Monday granted time to him and adjourned the hearing till September 18 in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case, Express News reported.

PM Ashraf had requested the Supreme Court that he required at least four to six weeks in order to consult his legal team to resolve the issue.

Prime Minister Ashraf was directed by the Supreme Court to write a letter to Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.

The court earlier wanted to grant him two-week's time and adjourn the hearing till September 12, however, Ashraf informed the court that he will not be able to appear before the court that day due to his scheduled tour to China.

Heading a five-member bench, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa observed that according to Article 90 of the Constitution, the premier could exercise executive authority and task someone to implement the court's orders to write the Swiss letter.

He had earlier said that the Supreme Court can grant more time only if an encouraging commitment is provided.

Ashraf had said, "I am only a political worker not a lawyer, I need to understand the case in order to resolve it."

He had requested the court to withdraw the show-cause notice issued against him in the case and had said that it brings a bad name to the sovereignty of Pakistan.

The prime minister had said that he would be available on a "phone call" whenever the court wants to see him.

Justice Khosa had observed that appearing before the court is not respect, but complying with the court's orders is.

He had said that the issue was not as big as it was being made. PM Ashraf had said that he does not want to prolong the case, but only wants to resolve it.

The prime minister had said that the issue should be resolved in a way which does not harm the sanctity of the judiciary.

Ashraf had said that he was facing a lot of pressure as a prime minister to resolve the issue which has created a situation of ebullience in the country.

Justice Khosa had observed that Ashraf had not appeared before the court today as a defendant in the case. He had said that PM Ashraf was as respectful as any other citizen of Pakistan.

Ashraf had said that it is an honour for him to appear before the court just after he took charge as the prime minister.

Earlier, while speaking to the media, Minister for Information and Broadcasting Qamar Zaman Kaira had said that Prime Minister ’s presence in the court today will prove all those people wrong who accuse the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) of not complying with the court’s orders.

Kaira had said that the party was expecting justice and betterment from the Supreme Court today.

He had said that the PPP has obeyed court’s orders whenever summons are issued for its prime ministers.

Replying to a question regarding delay in taking decision about PM Ashraf coming to the court, the minister had said that there was no delay in taking the decision and that the PPP believes in discussing issues with its members as it is a democratic party.

Security had been beefed up under the supervision of Interior Minister Rehman Malik within and outside the premises of the Supreme Court with Rangers, police among other Law Enforcement Agencies deployed.

Red zone was also sealed from 7am to 11am, while aerial monitoring was also being done with two helicopters.

Only those who had special passes were allowed to enter the court’s premises.

Walk-through gates had been installed on the premises of the Supreme Court. The parking lot was also vacated and all extra cars parked there were taken out.

Attorney General Irfan Qadir had said that one of the two most important elements of the state -- the prime minister -- has appeared before the court showing his respect for the judiciary.

Qadir had said that he hoped that the "judiciary also reciprocates the respect."]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>PM likely to face same fate as Gilani, says Aitzaz</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/426759/prediction-pm-likely-to-face-same-fate-as-gilani-says-aitzaz</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/426759/prediction-pm-likely-to-face-same-fate-as-gilani-says-aitzaz#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 12 22:48:25 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[qamar.zaman]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=426759</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Until Asif Ali Zardai is the president, he could not be tried in any court of law, says Aitzaz.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[PPP Senator Aitzaz Ahsan has predicted that Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf might face the same fate as his predecessor, Yousaf Raza Gilani, when the Supreme Court resumes hearing the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case on Monday (today). 

Aitzaz was Gilani’s lawyer in the contempt of court case in which he was convicted and disqualified on June 19 after failing to implement the NRO verdict the court had delivered in December 2009.

While addressing the media in Haripur, the PPP stalwart said that the 10 judges who disqualified Gilani would definitely uphold their previous verdict at every cost.

Similarly, renowned jurist and former law minister Senator SM Zafar told The Express Tribune on Sunday that there was a possibility the court would announce its decision instead of postponing the case any further.

The Supreme Court had issued a show-cause notice under Article 204 of the Constitution to Premier Ashraf over his failure to implement court orders of writing a letter to Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases against the president. He was directed to appear personally before the court on August 27 (today).

Procedure of hearing

While explaining the procedure of court hearings, SM Zafar said that the court would first question Prime Minister Ashraf about the implementation of its orders.

On receiving his reply, the court will then frame charges against the prime minister, seeing that the order has not been implemented.

Following that, the premier’s legal representative will present his arguments, Zafar explained.

Although the former law minister did not rule out the possibility of a postponement, he said, “the entire process can end in one day and the court can announce its decision.”

Appearing before the court

Aitzaz appeared to be uncertain whether the prime minister would appear before the Supreme Court today to accept the judgment on writing a letter to Swiss authorities.

“He could personally appear before the apex court, or get represented by Attorney General, or could seek time from the court,” he said. The senator added, however, that he was certain about one thing: until Asif Ali Zardai is the president, he could not be tried in any court of law.

“There is not a single precedent in the world’s history in which a sitting president was tried by a court of law during the last 500 years,” he said.

However, he brushed aside the notion that he was completely opposed to the Swiss letter, saying that the timing was not appropriate under the law.

On the other hand, Zafar said the prime minister, in his opinion, would not skip the proceedings and appear before the court.

“It is a contempt matter and it has become a norm that prime ministers do appear before the court as was done by Gilani and Nawaz Sharif,” he said.

In case the premier does not appear before the court, however, Zafar said the government’s lawyer would provide reasons for his absence, which “the court will take as defiance”.

Pending review petition

When asked whether the pending review petition of the government against the Supreme Court’s order asking the premier to implement the NRO judgment would have any impact on the case, Zafar said “…legally there is no hitch and court can proceed irrespective of the fact that a review petition connected to the matter is pending before it.”

He added that the government may buy time on the pretext of its pending review petition. “The government may ask the court to postpone the hearing till decision of its review petition,” he said.

However, Zafar said there were limited chances of the court giving the government more time, “since the matter is lingering for years and the court had given enough time to the former premier”.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 27th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>NRO hearing: PM to appear before SC today</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/426758/nro-hearing-pm-to-appear-before-sc-today</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/426758/nro-hearing-pm-to-appear-before-sc-today#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 12 22:09:49 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[zia.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=426758</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Allies rally behind government in Swiss letter row, pledge to stand united in the face of challenges.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[There will be no surprises today, at least from the government’s side, during the crucial hearing of the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case today.  

Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf will appear before the Supreme Court today, but he will only do so to tell the highest court in the land that the president has immunity from prosecution and that writing a letter to Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari would go against the presidential immunity— setting the stage for a fate similar to his predecessor’s.

The decisions to appear before the court and refusal to write a letter were taken at the Presidency late Sunday night at a meeting of government and coalition parties that was jointly chaired by President Zardari and Premier Ashraf.

A five-member bench hearing the NRO implementation case has ordered the premier to write a letter to Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases against President Zardari.

There were murmurs that an overwhelming majority of the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) leaders were not in favour of the premier’s appearance before the Supreme Court and a high-level meeting on Friday night remained short of taking any final decision in this regard.

The bench issued a show cause notice to the prime minister earlier this month to explain reasons behind the failure in writing the letter despite crystal clear orders by the court on July 12. The government had already filed a review petition against the summoning of the premier and the court’s July 12 order, but a decision in the case is still pending.

An official statement issued by the Presidency confirmed that the government and coalition parties had decided that the premier would appear before the court, alongside cabinet ministers and coalition partners to symbolise unity in their decision.

“After weighing available options, the meeting decided that in line with the coalition government policy of showing respect to the majesty of law, the prime minister will appear before the Supreme Court on Monday,” the statement said.

“Accordingly Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf will appear before the Supreme Court on Monday in response to the notice issued to him,” the statement added.

Response 

Even though the handout didn’t explicitly state what the premier would say to the five-member bench, a party leader who attended the meeting told The Express Tribune that he would follow his predecessor Yousaf Raza Gilani in this regard.

Gilani refused to write letter to Swiss authorities, arguing that the president has immunity from prosecution under the national and international laws. However, the Supreme Court wasn’t satisfied with the former premier’s argument, charging him with the contempt of court and disqualifying him from public office.

The coalition leader said the government would also seek deferment of the court’s order to the prime minister until the review petition against the July 12 order is decided.

Presidential spokesperson Senator Farhatullah Babar said the meeting discussed the current political situation in the country with particular reference to the court cases against the government. Law Minister Farooq Naek gave a comprehensive briefing on the court cases and the options available to the government to tackle them.

The coalition partners also resolved to stand united in the face of challenges confronting the government and the prime minister, Babar added. The president and the prime minister thanked coalition partners for their continued support in the face of adversity and said that their support was most-valuable for political stability in the country.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 27th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>PM’s court appearance: PPP hierarchy weighs options</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/425977/pm%e2%80%99s-court-appearance-ppp-hierarchy-weighs-options</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/425977/pm%e2%80%99s-court-appearance-ppp-hierarchy-weighs-options#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 12 22:48:41 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[zia.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=425977</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Sources say Zardari is considering letting premier appear in court, while majority of party is against it.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Top leaders of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) considered fresh proposals on Friday to seek a way out of a possibly make-or-break confrontation with the judiciary over reviving graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari – but with high stakes at hand, the leadership continued to waver over which route to take.


A meeting, chaired by the president and Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf was held on Friday night, with party leaders attempting to find a ‘middle ground’. The huddle took place just days ahead of the next hearing in the Supreme Court on the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case.

At the top of the agenda was the question of whether the premier should appear before the apex court on August 27 to provide an explanation for why he is yet to write a letter to Swiss authorities in order to reopen the cases against President Zardari.

The Supreme Court has already ordered Ashraf to dispatch a letter to the concerned Swiss agencies.

An official handout was silent on the issue and none of the participants was available to share details of the meeting that took place behind closed doors in the President House – but a top PPP leader said most party officials were of the opinion that the premier should remain a no-show during the hearing.

“Most people in the party think the premier should not go to the court on Monday…but the final decision will be taken by the president after consulting the law minister and other members of the legal team,” said Fawad Chaudhry, adviser to the prime minister on political affairs.

Earlier in the day, Attorney General Irfan Qadir had also sent out a similar message to the media: “I want to invite all to read article 248 (1) of the Constitution where it says clearly that the prime minister cannot be summoned by any court.”

According to some PPP leaders, however, President Zardari was of a different opinion altogether.

Party officials explained that the president felt that open defiance of court orders could trigger a crisis much bigger than the one the PPP government is currently facing as a result of the judiciary-executive tensions.

“He may send the premier to court against the advice of his party colleagues,” a PPP leader said.

‘Secret trip to Switzerland’

Meanwhile, there were speculations earlier in the day that Law Minister Farooq H Naek travelled to Switzerland during the Eid holidays to negotiate a covert deal with authorities about the cases President Zardari once faced there.

Some unconfirmed reports suggested that PPP leaders were considering writing a letter to the Swiss authorities – but one that worked in their favour. The proposed letter would focus on the immunity provided by national and international law to the president.

“It will satisfy the court here and won’t harm the president either,” said one such report on a private television channel.

According to the official statement, Presidential Spokesperson Senator Farhatullah Babar said the meeting discussed the ‘current political situation’ in the country.

The law and order situation, floods and the energy crisis were also discussed.

The spokesperson said that Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf and Minister for Water and Power Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar briefed the meeting on the power crisis and the progress on various measures being taken to overcome the national energy shortage.

Senator Babar also said that the meeting also reviewed reports about the Hindu community’s grievances and discrimination against minorities.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 25th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>SC promises to ‘accommodate’ PM if he responds ‘positively’</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/423254/sc-promises-to-%e2%80%98accommodate%e2%80%99-pm-if-he-responds-%e2%80%98positively%e2%80%99</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/423254/sc-promises-to-%e2%80%98accommodate%e2%80%99-pm-if-he-responds-%e2%80%98positively%e2%80%99#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 12 22:34:31 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[azam.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=423254</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Turns down law minister’s request to postpone Aug 27 NRO case hearing.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Supreme Court made it clear that the prime minister would face consequences if he failed to appear before the court on August 27 with a “positive statement” regarding its order in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) judgment implementation case.


However, the court promised to “accommodate” the premier if a commitment was given on the day he appears.

A five-member bench, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, was hearing a petition moved by the federation seeking a review of the court’s July 12 order, through which it had directed Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf to write a letter to Swiss authorities asking them to reopen graft cases against the president.

In a rare move, Law Minister Farooq H Naek himself approached the apex court on Thursday along with Attorney General Irfan Qadir to seek more time in order for the government to devise a plan regarding writing a letter to the Swiss authorities.

The court, however, turned down Naek’s request to postpone the hearing of the NRO case later than August 27, saying it would only be possible if the premier made a positive commitment that day.

“If the gentleman whom we have issued notice to, and whom we have great respect for due to his office, appears and makes a positive statement, we will certainly accommodate him; and if he fails to do so, then the law will take its course,” Justice Khosa said. The judge also told the law minister that “there will be no problem if he (the prime minister) utters two positive words.”

Justice Khosa reiterated the court’s stance, saying: “We have only issued direction in para 178 (of the NRO judgment) and stated that the status of Pakistan as damaged civil party be revived, we did not add anything, we did not mention the president or the prosecution, we do not want anything more than what we have written, we do not know why this exaggeration is going on; problem arises in the absence of commitment, we cannot terminate the proceedings you (the federal government; attorney general and law minister) can consider to withdraw the review if you feel that things are going in another direction.”

The law minister told the court that the government does not want to drag the matter or imply delaying tactics, adding that a decision cannot be taken by one man.

“I am very confident that if this case is adjourned till the first week of September, something very positive will come out of it,” Naek insisting.

He added that with Eid around the corner, the government does not have enough time for deliberation on the issue. “We want to appear before the court with some understanding,” he said.

After consulting other members of the bench, Justice Khosa told the law minister that this bench was different from the implementation bench, and could, therefore, not change the date.

Review petition

Meanwhile, the federal government seemed to be willing to reconsider its review petition against the court’s July 12 order.

During Thursday’s hearing, the attorney general told the court to put the decision on the review on hold, as he was seriously considering withdrawing it.

Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan remarked it would not create any impediment in the hearing of the main case. Justice Khosa observed that if the prime minister appeared before the court in the NRO proceedings, the review could become anfractuous.

Giving details of his meeting with Prime Minister Ashraf on Wednesday, Attorney General Qadir told the court that there was a genuine desire on part of the government to resolve the issue once and for all.

“We have taken serious deliberations, and have decided to take into confidence others who were not available yesterday,” Qadir said.


Published in The Express Tribune, August 17th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Accountability for all: Cabinet assents to asset-declaration for judges, generals</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/422685/accountability-for-all-cabinet-assents-to-asset-declaration-for-judges-generals</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/422685/accountability-for-all-cabinet-assents-to-asset-declaration-for-judges-generals#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 12 21:32:13 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[sumera.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=422685</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Legislation to be introduced soon; Kaira says PPP leadership’s decisions accepted by entire party.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[In an unprecedented move, the federal cabinet on Wednesday agreed to a proposal that will require all officials drawing salaries from the national exchequer to declare their assets – which will include military officials, judges of the higher judiciary, and high-ranking bureaucrats.


Parliamentarians are already required to show all their assets on an annual basis – but this practice will now extend to government servants and all those who are on the payroll of the state.

The proposal was initiated back in 2011. On Wednesday, a meeting of the federal cabinet took up the proposal, and, after accepting it, put the matter in the hands of Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf. The matter will now go into legislation before becoming law.

When asked, the information minister said that the government will soon introduce legislation in this regard.

“In my point of view, if all politicians have to declare their assets, everyone should disclose their assets,” said Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira while briefing the media after attending the cabinet meeting. When asked whether judges and generals would also have to disclose their assets, he said, “If legislation is passed in this regard, no one is above the law.”

Swiss letter

Commenting on the rumours of dissent within the party regarding the writing of a letter to Swiss authorities for reopening graft cases against the president, Kaira said, “Difference of opinion cannot be ruled out, but there cannot be any difference over a decision made by the party’s leadership.”

He said that the PPP leadership was worried where the country would stand if another prime minister was sacked, and added that, in case this happens, the decision on whether the move would be resisted or not will be taken at the next party meeting.

Kaira said that the cabinet committee on Balochistan also presented its interim report on the law and order situation in the province after holding consultations with various stakeholders in Quetta‚ Karachi and Islamabad, but it had requested further time to finalise its recommendations.

Elections

The prime minister also directed the federal cabinet to prepare for elections as the polls neared.

Prime Minster Raja Pervaiz Ashraf told the meeting that the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) believes in free‚ fair and impartial elections, and added that, after providing an ‘appropriate environment’ for elections, PPP will accept the results whichever political party wins.

Later, the information minister also reiterated that government’s commitment to holding elections on schedule.

Energy 

The cabinet meeting was also briefed about the energy crisis and steps taken to mitigate issues faced by the concerned authorities. During the meeting, recommendations of a parliamentary committee on the matter were also discussed.

The cabinet was informed that, in the first 12 days of August last year, power generation was 14,274 MW whereas it was 14,306 MW during the same period this year. Water and power secretary said day-time electricity production was 13,250 MW, which increases to 14,300 MW in the evening, adding that hydel production during day time was 5,000 MW and 6,100 MW in the evening.

A special cabinet session will be held after Eidul Fitr to take up the energy crisis.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 16th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>NRO implementation: SC asks govt to reconsider review</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/422682/nro-implementation-sc-asks-govt-to-reconsider-review</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/422682/nro-implementation-sc-asks-govt-to-reconsider-review#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 12 21:19:18 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[azam.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=422682</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Attorney-general told to communicate decision by today; request for larger bench struck down.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The government may have wanted to buy time for the premier by filing a review petition, but the court has informed it that an unsuccessful review will actually end up speeding up the process against the prime minister.


Hearing the government’s review petition against its July 12 order (in which Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf was directed to write a letter to Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases against the president) on Wednesday, a five-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, had some advice for  Attorney-General Irfan Qadir: At this stage, it may not be fruitful for the government to exhaust all its options, given that the court could pass an order against the petition.

The government was warned that, if the review is struck down, the likelihood of which is high, then the process of holding the prime minister accountable, possibly even through contempt proceedings, would automatically be fast-tracked – given that future arguments in his defence would then already have been dealt with in this review.

The prime minister has already been given a show-cause notice and been asked to appear before the court on August 27 in connection with the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) judgment implementation case.

Giving the government one day to reconsider its decision to go for a review,  the court asked Qadir to consult the government’s legal wizards and seek instructions as to whether or not the government wanted to press the petition.

The appeal was filed by the attorney-general last Wednesday after a show-cause notice was issued to Premier Ashraf after his failure to implement the NRO judgement. Just like the case of former premier Yousaf Raza Gilani, the notice to the incumbent was given under Section 17 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 read with Article 204 of the Constitution.

Bench composition 

A large part of the review petition, and the time it was supposed to consume, depended upon protests against the bench.

The first issue was the fact that one member of the five-member bench hearing the review had been changed. A review petition is supposed to be heard by the same judges who passed the initial order. However, one of the five original judges had gone on leave for religious reasons – leading the government to protest against the “haste” of the apex court. The government asked the court to adjourn the hearing of the review till after the Eidul Fitr holidays – after which that judge would be available.

This contention was, however, shot down by the court.

The attorney-general also requested the formation of a larger bench to hear the review, contending that the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the contentious Contempt of Court Act 2012 and the government’s review petition in the NRO implementation case were interconnected and a larger bench should be formed.

This plea was also rejected.

Some headway?

There was some respite from what has become almost a scripted back-and-forth between the government and apex court.

At one point during proceedings, the attorney-general said that the government could write a letter if it did not mention the name of the president. At this, the court said that it had actually never asked the government to mention the president’s name – pointing out that the court wanted a letter written to Swiss authorities taking back the “illegal communication of former attorney general Malik Qayyum” – which had resulted in Pakistan removing itself as a party from graft cases against current president Asif Ali Zardari.

The court also re-explained its NRO judgment and said that the prime minister was not required to write the letter himself. In fact, it was his constitutional duty to obey court orders and authorise the relevant office for such communication to invalidate Qayyum’s unauthorised communication. “We are not asking for the prime minister’s handwritten letter,” Justice Khosa clarified.

The hearing of the matter will resume today (Thursday), when the attorney-general will come back with the government’s response to the court’s advice.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 16th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Belligerence: PPP leaders for defying SC summons</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/422271/belligerence-ppp-leaders-for-defying-sc-summons</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/422271/belligerence-ppp-leaders-for-defying-sc-summons#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 12 22:20:04 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[zia.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=422271</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Sources say the PPP leadership feels the judiciary is going ‘too far’ in asserting its authority.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The ruling party’s patience is running thin.


In a sign of growing frustration towards the judiciary, an overwhelming majority of Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) leaders has advised Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf not to appear before the Supreme Court on August 27.

A five-member bench, hearing a case of implementation of an earlier Supreme Court order on the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), has summoned the prime minister on August 27 to explain why he failed to write a letter to Swiss authorities to reopen a graft case against President Asif Ali Zardari.

The government has already filed a review petition for that order and the hearing into the plea is scheduled for Wednesday (today).

‘Enough’

It is still undecided whether Prime Minister Ashraf would appear before the court on August 27 or not, said adviser to the prime minister on political affairs Chaudhry Fawad.

Fawad, who is also a member of the legal team defending the government against several challenges in the Supreme Court, said that most party leaders were not in favour of sending the premier to the court.

Attorney General Irfan Qadir also spoke against the apex court summons.

“In my opinion, the court’s decision is unconstitutional and the government could ignore it,” he added. Sources say the PPP leadership feels the judiciary is going ‘too far’ in asserting its authority and powers. There are fears the court might start framing contempt charges against Premier Ashraf if he refuses to write the letter to Swiss authorities.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court disqualified Raja’s predecessor, Yousaf Raza Gilani, for contempt of court after he kept on refusing to write the same letter.

President to decide

A party leader, on Tuesday, said the final decision on sending the premier to the top court would be taken by President Zardari after consultations with associates.

“I don’t know what will be the final decision but the mood in the party is different this time around. People are angry at the judiciary and telling the prime minister to defy its orders,” revealed the PPP official.

According to the attorney general, summoning of the prime minister by the apex court is unconstitutional and the review petition would seek the withdrawal of that directive.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 15th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>PPP will keep replacing ousted premiers, says Aitzaz</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/422267/braving-the-confrontation-ppp-will-keep-replacing-ousted-premiers-says-aitzaz</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/422267/braving-the-confrontation-ppp-will-keep-replacing-ousted-premiers-says-aitzaz#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 12 21:36:45 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[abdul.manan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=422267</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Says PM Ashraf will have to go home if contempt proceedings are initiated against him.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[If the apex court’s orders to write the letter to Swiss authorities were a siege around the ruling party’s fort, the latter has announced, indirectly, that it is prepared to brave this out.


Pakistan Peoples Party’s (PPP) senior leader, Senator Aitzaz Ahsan, said if the Supreme Court removes the incumbent prime minister, Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, the party will accept the court’s decision, but also find a replacement.

Addressing a press conference at his residence on Tuesday, Aitzaz said there was no possibility of reaching any sort of compromise in the implementation of the National Reconciliation Ordinance verdict case.

Aitzaz did not chew his words. If the time comes, Prime Minister Ashraf will have to leave office, he said.

“There is no middle way if contempt proceedings against Prime Minister Ashraf are initiated … the Supreme Court is bound to remove the incumbent premier for contempt, as was done in the case of former premier Yousaf Raza Gilani,” Aitzaz said.

Since his arguments in the case of the former premier were not accepted by the apex court, Aitzaz said the situation will be the same in Prime Minister Ashraf’s case.

The extent of confrontation between the judiciary and the executive would be the removal of Prime Minister Ashraf, which the PPP-led coalition government is ready to accept, he said.

He added in the same breath, though, that the PPP would bring in a new prime minister, even if it meant electing and presenting a dozen more premiers till the end of current parliament’s tenure in March 2013.

“Till March 2013, the Supreme Court will be engaged in sending back premiers while the PPP-led coalition government is determined to elect more,” he said.

The government, he added, would never exercise any tactics which might harm the dignity of the court.

Ahsan said the Supreme Court could not dissolve parliament, nor can parliament oust the judiciary.

He said parliament could only be dissolved when its tenure ends or if the premier asks the president to dissolve it.

He said there was no possibility of the latter since, in his opinion, parliament had been performing its role commendably in the field of legislation.

Aitzaz said he did not think the judiciary is going beyond its limitations, but in the case of NRO implementation case, the judiciary is on the wrong track.

“Although the judiciary is not playing politics, some political elements are using this entire scenario for nefarious purposes,” he added.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 15th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Government will accept court orders if Ashraf is disqualified: Aitzaz Ahsan</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/422050/government-will-accept-court-orders-if-ashraf-is-disqualified-aitzaz-ahsan</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/422050/government-will-accept-court-orders-if-ashraf-is-disqualified-aitzaz-ahsan#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 12 16:04:30 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[abdul.manan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=422050</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Ahsan says judiciary is not playing politics, but some political elements are using it for their nefarious gains.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan Peoples Party’s (PPP) senior leader Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan said on Tuesday that if the Supreme Court removes Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf in the NRO implementation case, then his party will accept the orders and appoint a new premier.

Ahsan, while addressing a press conference at his residence, ruled out chances of finding any ‘middle way’ in the case. “There is no middle way in the contempt proceedings against Ashraf as the Supreme Court is bound to remove prime ministers in contempt cases like it did in the case of Yousaf Raza Gilani.”

He said that the PPP has decided to let the parliament complete its tenure till March 2013 and if the court removes four more premiers then the parliament will present and elect dozens more till the end of its tenure. He added that neither can the Supreme Court dissolve the parliament nor the parliament can oust the entire judiciary.

When asked if the government will take any action against the apex court, Ahsan said, “I assure the people of Pakistan that the government would never exercise any such tactics which degrades the judiciary.”

“Till March 2013, the Supreme Court will remain engaged in sending back premiers while the PPP-led coalition government is determined to elect more prime ministers,” he maintained.

Is judiciary playing politics?

When asked if the judiciary is playing politics, Ahsan said, “The judiciary is not playing politics, but some political elements are using it to achieve their nefarious goals.”

He added that in the NRO implementation case, the judiciary is on the wrong track.

Ahsan further said that the Article 248 of the Constitution clearly restricts the premier to proceed against the president of Pakistan, but the judiciary is on a mission to send back elected prime ministers instead of honouring the Constitution.

He said that the apex court, instead of only hearing political petitions, should focus on the problems of ordinary people like issues pertaining to registration of FIRs, issuance of stay orders against the construction of their houses, and decide hundreds of pending cases of civil and criminal nature.

He also advised the political parties to not approach the courts in each and every issue.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>NRO implementation: SC forms 5-judge bench to hear government’s review petition</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/420724/nro-implementation-sc-forms-5-judge-bench-to-hear-government%e2%80%99s-review-petition</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/420724/nro-implementation-sc-forms-5-judge-bench-to-hear-government%e2%80%99s-review-petition#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 11 Aug 12 09:58:04 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[web.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=420724</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The bench will hear the review petition against court's July 12 orders on August 15.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Pakistan formed a five-member bench on Saturday to hear the government’s review petition against the court’s July 12 orders in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case, reported Express News.

A five-judge bench, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, had ordered Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf to write a letter to Swiss authorities to reopen cases against President Asif Ali Zardari without taking any advice.

The government had filed a review petition against the order asking the court to set it aside, which, it maintained, was not implementable.

According to Supreme Court’s Registrar Office, the five-member bench will hear the petition on August 15.

The bench will comprise of Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, Justice Sarmad Jalal Usmani, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Justice Gulzar Ahmad and Justice Athar Saeed.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Full circle</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419278/full-circle</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419278/full-circle#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 12 18:18:53 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[editorial]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Editorial]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=419278</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The clash we now have right in the open between two key institutions is not at all reassuring.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[We have walked a distance and quickly come right back to the starting point. Just like his predecessor, Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf has been issued a contempt of court notice for failing to write the letter to Swiss authorities that would reopen corruption cases against the president of the country. The somewhat more conciliatory attitude adopted by the Court during its last hearing in the matter had vanished on August 8, with the five-member bench hearing the matter saying it saw no reason why the present prime minister should be treated in a manner any different than former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani who, of course, was disqualified over the same NRO issue.

The situation continues to become an increasingly sticky one. The Supreme Court turned down a request from the Attorney General that the next hearing be delayed till September. August 27 has been set as the date when the prime minister will need to offer an answer to the show-cause notice served to him. He does not really have much time. The PPP, meanwhile, has already decided that it will not be writing the letter; its argument has consistently been that the president enjoys immunity under the Constitution and cannot be tried for corruption. The Court differs on this key issue of immunity.

The legal arguments are potentially endless; lawyers and other experts all hold their own views on the matter. But the fact is that this affair has consumed huge amounts of energy and time. It has acted to destabilise the country and left everything in a state of flux. This is, perhaps, all the more so given that talks of technocrats in the government and suggestions of early polls keep coming up. The uncertainty can only add to the problems we face. Most of all, in our still struggling democracy, we need a sense of stability and order as well as some sense of normalcy. The clash we now have right in the open between two key institutions is not at all reassuring. It is also unclear where a solution lies or what can be done to solve another approaching crisis, which threatens to badly shake the existing order.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 9th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Letter to Swiss authorities: Govt files review petition against SC order to PM</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419384/letter-to-swiss-authorities-govt-files-review-petition-against-sc-order-to-pm</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419384/letter-to-swiss-authorities-govt-files-review-petition-against-sc-order-to-pm#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 12 17:15:11 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[our.correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=419384</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Asks court to set aside its order as it was not implementable.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Attorney General Irfan Qadir on Tuesday filed a review petition against the Supreme Court order passed on July 12, which ordered Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf to write letter to Swiss authorities regarding the reopening of cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.

The order was passed by five-judge bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) case.

Through its review petition, the federal government has asked the court to set aside its order as it was not implementable.

According to the review petition, the prime minister had not received any advice to write the letter, adding that he was not bound to write the letter.

The petition further stated that the Supreme Court’s June 27 and July 12 orders were unlawful and if the letter was written, it would violate Article 248 (2) of the Constitution as a result.

The petition maintained that the main judgment in the NRO case was recorded by a 17-member bench and it could not be implemented by a seven-member bench.

It also stated that the issue of implementation of para 178 [writing a letter to Swiss authorities] no longer arose as the court had already punished one prime minister for not obeying the court order.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>PM contempt: Asma Jahangir terms August 8 as ‘black day in judicial history’</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419356/pm-contempt-asma-jahangir-terms-august-8-as-%e2%80%98black-day-in-judicial-history%e2%80%99</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419356/pm-contempt-asma-jahangir-terms-august-8-as-%e2%80%98black-day-in-judicial-history%e2%80%99#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 12 16:37:33 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[qaiser.zulfiqar]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=419356</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Jahangir criticises court order, says judges are undermining judiciary, democracy themselves.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Former president Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Asma Jahangir termed Wednesday as yet another 'black day' in the judicial history of the country after the Supreme Court issued show-cause notices to Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case.

Addressing the media after the hearing, Jahangir said that the judges of the apex court are themselves undermining the institution implying that democracy will not flourish in the country.

“The hearing could have been fixed after Eid. What was the haste?” questioned Jahangir and said that the prime minister was not running out of the country.

Strongly reacting on the court's orders, Jahangir remarked that when the court gives rulings based on political bias and strategy instead of law, the common man loses confidence in the courts.

“During the last hearing, the court had hinted a middle way out but today’s attitude of the court was contrary to the previous. It reflects a strategised and planned ruling,” maintained Jahangir, adding that the attitude of the judges can lead to irrecoverable loss if they are planning or are part of a planning against the government.

She further maintained that the court should see Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry’s son Arsalan Iftikhar and Prime Minister Ashraf with the same eye of justice. “We want a strong judiciary, not a powerful one.”

Jahangir added that she does not support the new contempt of court law as many of its sections are against the spirit of the Constitution but restrictions cannot be imposed on the parliament taking away its right of legislation.

She further said that she has nothing to do with the issue of writing letter to the Swiss authorities but wants the judiciary to give its verdicts in line with the Constitution. She added that she had fought and would continue to fight for the independence and supremacy of judiciary “but keeping in view the conduct of the Supreme Court, it seems democracy will not work”.

Attorney General Irfan Qadir, speaking to the media, also expressed his concern over the court orders and said that he was not expecting the court to summon the prime minister.

“I am hopeful that the court will observe restrain, and hopefully a middle way out will be adopted,” said Qadir. “I, being the mediator, will try to find a peaceful resolution of the issue instead of a confrontation.”

Lawyer protests

Jahangir said that the Pakistan Bar Association is a professional body of lawyers and it should not go on strike if a matter is sub judice before the court.

“If the bar expresses jubilation about a sub judice matter, there will remain no difference between a lawyer and a politician,” she maintained.

“Our community and Bar Associations are being destroyed. These bars should not be turned into devotees’ club, these bars are not a branch of any judge,” she added.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt for the rest</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/410556/contempt-for-the-rest</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/410556/contempt-for-the-rest#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 12 19:14:46 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[nadir.hassan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=410556</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Contempt of Court Act grants an exemption for Prime Minister from the constitutional law that governs the country.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[There are few who would disagree that Pakistan has a dual justice system. Those who have the means to escape accountability for their flagrant law-breaking do so with obscene flagrancy. Paying taxes is a punishment that is reserved only for those who are paid a salary and thus have their share to the national exchequer cut off at the source. If you are lucky enough to own a business or have connections with those who matter, then taxation is an alien concept that you may have heard of, something akin to the Loch Ness Monster but not something that you have ever actually experienced in the flesh.

All right-thinking people obviously condemn the ease with which the most wealthy and powerful among us get away with flouting the law. As bad as being able to get away with not paying your burden of tax revenue may be, what truly stings is that this state of affairs breeds inequality, with a different rules set for people who can afford to ignore the law.

How, then, is the recent contempt of judiciary bill passed by the National Assembly any less unfair than the apartheid-like tax system prevalent in the country? You have a group of lawmakers who have decided that their leaders deserve an exemption from the constitutional law that governs the country. Sure, like those who dodge their taxes, the parliamentarians have high-sounding reasons to explain why they believe an exception needs to be carved out of the law for themselves. Just like most industrialists say that they don’t pay taxes since giving money to such corrupt governments would be quite immoral, members of parliament argue that their leaders need to be protected from a judiciary drunk on its own power.

For the sake of argument, let’s concede that the Supreme Court exceeded its mandate in charging the prime minister with contempt of court. I happen to disagree with that contention since flouting an order of the judiciary should be somehow punishable. But, even if the Court erred, making a permanent law on the basis of one flawed judgment is always a bad idea. In order to protect future hypothetical heads of government from being kicked out by an indignant judiciary, the National Assembly has now given prime ministers carte blanche to ignore each and every verdict handed out by the Supreme Court. And if we look at the history of this country, leaders who consider themselves above the law of the land are far more prevalent than rogue Supreme Courts. These future leaders’ disdain for such trifles as Supreme Court verdicts have now been codified into law.

This same attitude, which says that the most powerful in the country need even further indemnity from the consequences of the law, is already written into the Constitution. The 1973 Constitution is a very fine document so long as you ignore all the exceptions written in it. We are guaranteed all our freedoms — so long as they don’t end up hurting the delicate feelings of the judiciary, the armed forces or those who are religiously sensitive. What these exceptions do is essentially nullify the constitutional protections that precede them. The right to free speech must include the right to offend sacred cows. Similarly, any punishment prescribed by law must be equally applicable to everyone or they just end up being a hammer with which to beat down those who do not have sufficient power or money. Even loyalists of the PPP, who feel hard done by, should not end up in a position where they defend a system that only provides justice to some.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 20th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Two options before the Supreme Court</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/409950/two-options-before-the-supreme-court</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/409950/two-options-before-the-supreme-court#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 12 16:40:43 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[markandey.katju]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=409950</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The great error by Pakistan Supreme Court was in disqualifying, removing Gilani by contending he defamed judiciary.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[It seems to me that the Pakistan Supreme Court logically now has only two options before it when it resumes its hearing in the NRO case on July 25:

1) It can continue on its path of confrontation with the political authorities. In that case, it must disqualify Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf because logically, it cannot give him a treatment different from what it meted out to Yousaf Raza Gilani. Thereafter, it must disqualify the third prime minister who will be appointed after Prime Minister Ashraf, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum.

2) It must switch over to the path of judicial restraint, overrule its earlier decision disqualifying Mr Gilani and openly acknowledge its mistake. This it can do because the five-judge bench hearing the case can overrule the three-judge bench verdict of disqualifying Mr Gilani.

In all earnestness and as a well-wisher to members of my own erstwhile judicial fraternity, I would advise the Court to adopt the second path. The Court is now standing on the brink of a precipice from which it should step back immediately to avoid disaster. This is the last chance it has of not plunging downhill and taking the country down with it.

We are all human beings and we all commit mistakes. So do the Courts. Lord Alfred Denning has said that “the judge has not been born who has not committed a mistake”. There is nothing dishonourable in acknowledging one’s mistake. In fact, one grows in stature in accepting one’s mistake. The provision for review in most statutes and constitutions is precisely because it was realised that sometimes courts commit grievous errors and should have an opportunity to correct them.

The path of confrontation with political authorities is the surest path of wrecking the Constitution and will be disastrous for the country and democracy. Justice Felix Frankfurter repeatedly advised judges to avoid entering the ‘political thicket’, and the recent judgment of Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court, in the Affordable Healthcare Act case, has basically followed the same wise approach.

There can be given any number of instances where courts have realised and accepted their mistakes. For example, after a period of confrontation with the government of President Franklin Roosevelt (when it was striking down the New Deal legislation), the US Supreme Court, in 1937, acknowledged its mistake and beginning from the decision in West Coast Hotel vs Parrish (1937) drastically reversed its stand and started upholding that legislation. Similarly, in Brown vs Board of Education (1954), the US Supreme Court reversed the racially obnoxious doctrine of  ‘separate but equal’ laid down in Plessey vs Ferguson (1896). In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978) the Indian Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision, and also in AK Gopalan vs State of Madras (1950) in which it had taken a narrow view of the right to life and liberty given in Article 21 of the Constitution. Many more such examples can be given from judicial history.

The great error committed by the Pakistan Supreme Court was in disqualifying and removing Mr Gilani from the post of prime minister by contending that he had defamed the judiciary. In fact, Mr Gilani had only taken a stand based on the immunity given to the president under Section 248(2) of the Constitution. He had not abused the Court or attributed corrupt or improper motives to it. How is this defamation? If this is defamation and contempt of court then whenever any lawyer objects to the jurisdiction of a court, he can also be jailed for defamation and contempt of court.

The Court forgot that in a parliamentary form of government, the prime minister holds office as long he has the confidence of parliament, not the confidence of the Supreme Court. Section 63(1)(g) cannot be utilised by the Court to oust a prime minister who undoubtedly enjoyed parliament’s confidence. I am afraid that the Court has set up a dangerous precedent by which it can remove a prime minister enjoying the confidence of parliament just because it is inimical to him (or to create problems for the president). This would be fatal for a democracy. The sooner this dangerous precedent is reversed, the better.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 19th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt of the people</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/409034/contempt-of-the-people</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/409034/contempt-of-the-people#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 12 17:32:02 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[yaqoob.khan.bangash]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=409034</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Unless idea of justice is upheld by all, this saga might show contempt that institutions have for the people.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Recently, a lot of ink has been spilled to remind the learned judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan that while the Contempt of Court law exists in most countries, it is seldom used. While I agree with the commentators that the courts in Pakistan are invoking the contempt law a bit too much and are involved in judicial activism, let me make a couple of points.

First, to point out that the contempt law is rarely used elsewhere is to simply ignore the reality in Pakistan. Nowhere in the world there exists a situation where a government wilfully ignores and publicly ridicules Supreme Court judgments. If the US president ignores a judgement of the US Supreme Court and publicly mocks it, he will be charged with contempt immediately. In civilised countries, courts are respected and it is almost inconceivable that a court order will be publicly flaunted and as such, the contempt issue simply does not arise.

Secondly, it is clear that sending the damned letter is not equivalent to prosecution — against which the president is protected. The letter the apex court has asked the government to write is simply to cancel the previous letter and nothing more. Therefore, the most the letter can do is initiate ‘investigation’, not ‘prosecution’. And there is ample evidence — from the Watergate scandal to the Monica Lewinsky case — that investigation for a crime can indeed take place against someone enjoying immunity. While the courts should now utilise one of the other six options they gave in the original judgment in order to ease tensions, the point the courts have tried to make has hopefully been understood: that it is impossible to call a country civilised or a government truly ‘democratic’ if they deride the judgments of the courts.

The great scholar John Rawls once noted: “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought.” Truly, justice is the firm basis of the social contract (which is the foundation of government) and is also found in natural law. Without justice, there can be no virtue, fairness or legitimacy in society. Therefore, the yearning for justice is the basic pre-requisite for the development of social institutions and setting up of a government — i.e., of civilisation itself.

And what is justice? Very briefly, justice is equality and fairness. No government, courts or any other force should be able to undermine these concepts. Otherwise, the basis of modern society and thought will be overthrown. The concept of modern democratic government is also premised upon the concept of justice. Therefore, while it used to be argued that parliament is sovereign, it is now generally agreed that it is sovereign within the bounds of justice and a country’s constitution. This simply means that no parliament, no matter how democratic, can legislate to take away basic human rights from the people. So, tomorrow morning the Pakistani parliament cannot, for example, legislate for the existence of slavery and argue that it has a right to do so since it is elected by the people. As soon as parliament impinges upon the inherent rights of the people and compromises the basic concept of justice, it forfeits its right to represent the people.

Coming back to Pakistan, what must be ensured in the current tussle between the judiciary and the executive is that the concept of justice should be upheld, both by the courts and by the government. Hence, the courts should not be seen as political and the government must not be seen as only using its legislative powers to protect itself. There cannot be a law, which protects the high and mighty from disregarding the directives of court, just as the courts should limit their interference in legislative and executive matters; all of these actions compromise the equality and fairness understandings of justice.

Ultimately, the question is about the people and their rights. Unless the idea of justice is upheld by all, this saga might just show the contempt that these institutions have for the people and their interests.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 17th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Know thy facts</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/409029/know-thy-facts</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/409029/know-thy-facts#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 12 17:18:32 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[feisal.h.naqvi]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=409029</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[What we are witnessing is struggle between visions — between those who want rule of law &amp;amp; those who want rule of man.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[There are moments in my academic past of which I am quite proud. Getting a distinguished Yale Law School professor of Constitutional Law to swear at me in open class is not one of them.

Some context first; the debate in question related to US vs Fordice, a case then pending before the US Supreme Court. The facts were that prior to segregation being declared illegal, Mississippi universities had been strictly divided into universities for blacks and universities for whites. After the US Supreme Court declared segregation illegal, Mississippi’s universities were ostensibly desegregated. However, a race-neutral admission test was implemented under which any student wanting to go to the historically white universities had to meet a minimum standard. The result was that the historically white universities remained overwhelmingly white, while the historically black universities remained overwhelmingly black. It was this de facto segregation that was under challenge.

My view then was that if the segregation resulted from a race-neutral test, then there was no ‘principled’ basis on which to declare it illegal. In other words, it was rational for the state to have universities of different standards and it was not the fault of the state if blacks could not meet the minimum entry standards. And it was this view, which had driven my normally mild-mannered professor to expletives.

As it turned out, all nine members of the US Supreme Court disagreed with me, a fact that I filed away under the general heading of  ‘inexplicable mysteries’, at least, until the day I read a biography of Judge Frank Johnson.

Judge Frank Johnson was a district judge based in Alabama who became the point man for judicial efforts to force desegregation. What I learnt from his biography was that disputes regarding blacks and whites in the American South could not be seen in terms of abstract principles. Instead, because opponents of desegregation had used every ostensibly neutral option to try and prolong white domination and that, as a consequence, the judiciary had decided that no rationale and no argument would be accepted for whatever reason, unless and until it produced desegregation in actual fact, principles be damned.

I mention all of this because our country will soon be plunged into a maelstrom of debate when the Supreme Court takes up the constitutionality of the new contempt law. All sorts of abstract principles are going to get thrown around. But this is not a case about high jurisprudence. As with the Mississippi colleges, judgment will be driven by the desired result. And I don’t have much of a problem with that.

Before I explain why I don’t have a problem, let’s review the facts. The new contempt law has been passed solely for one reason, that is, to try and delay the inevitable disqualification of Raja Pervaiz Ashraf for failing to implement the NRO judgment. In my view, the PPP’s stated excuse for not writing to the Swiss is rubbish. However, I also think the Supreme Court should avoid yet another fight by setting up a commission to send the letter directly to the Swiss.

Wait, you ask, if the Supreme Court shouldn’t be fighting with the PPP over this issue, how is striking down the new contempt law justified? Let me explain.

The short version is that all legal principles are not equal. Some principles are more important, more fundamental and more ‘weighty’ than others. And out of all legal principles and concepts, perhaps the most important is the concept of a ‘rule of law’.

There is no precise definition of the term ‘rule of law’. However, the essence of the concept is that the rule of law requires the exercise of governmental power to be subject to certain rules enforced and interpreted by an independent authority.

The new contempt law provides that certain high political functionaries such as the President, the Prime Minister and federal ministers cannot be charged with contempt for  “any act done or purported to be done ... in exercise of their powers and performance of functions as a public office holder”. In other words, what the contempt law provides is that our President, Prime Minister and federal ministers will henceforth have the right to ignore the courts and instead only apply such laws as they deem fit. Self-evidently, this is a complete negation of the rule of law.

At the same time, the new contempt law is not what scares me because that law is as good as dead today: all that remains is the formality of declaring it unconstitutional. Instead, what scares me is what lies beyond. If the majority of Parliament can be so unmindful as to enact this law, can the day be far behind when the Constitution itself will be amended to provide the same?

I hope that day never arrives. If it does, the country will learn that because of our history of constitutional adventurism, our judiciary has developed a vast arsenal of techniques to protect the Constitution. For example, all our military dictators have tried to provide immunity to their deeds through constitutional amendments. And in each case, the courts have steadfastly held that actions that are mala fide and without jurisdiction can never be protected from judicial scrutiny, irrespective of what any validation clause may say.

There is also one final ‘nuclear’ weapon that our judiciary holds in reserve — the ‘basic structure’ doctrine. Our judiciary has never applied that doctrine and, in fact, has never even held that it has the power to strike down constitutional amendments. But I have no doubt that if the immunity provision was incorporated into the Constitution, then that amendment too would be struck down.

It has now become trite to observe that we are witnessing a power struggle between the judiciary and Parliament. Perhaps, that was true earlier but it is no longer accurate. What we are witnessing instead is a struggle between visions of Pakistan — between those who want the rule of law and those who want the rule of man. For now, the rule of law is safe. But if this confrontation continues, the result may be a loss for both sides: an end to the rule of law, as well as an end to those men currently doing the ruling.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 17th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Need for judicial restraint</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/408324/need-for-judicial-restraint</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/408324/need-for-judicial-restraint#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jul 12 18:50:30 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[nafisa.shah]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=408324</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[How will Courts reign in public whisperings, sentiments or even the chatter on social and international media?]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The present superior judiciary has become controversial, not in the least for what some would call its exaggerated use of the contempt laws, prompting parliament and the executive to put in amendments to protect their constitutional jurisdiction.

Today, contempt charges are being faced by the president, the prime minister, the former law minister and the interior minister, among others. In the modern day, there are no known precedents of a prime minister being removed through contempt proceedings and a president facing a contempt case in a high court. Although in the former case, the charge made was for disobeying the court, the courts convicted the PM for ‘scandalising the courts’, making it seem like a case of being condemned unheard. The popular perception holds that this was done so that the punishment would lead to the disqualification clause — Article 63(1)(g), which would not have applied in the other case, which is why increasingly, the present courts are being perceived as political. This court also initiated contempt proceedings against 60 judges for violating their November 3, 2007 judgment, while overlooking the civil and military officials who did the same. Other examples of initiation of contempt proceedings include the former law minister for ‘reciting’ poetry and an officer for ‘staring’ at the judges. As against this, the nation witnessed how a senior public official summoned to the court was questioned without being given a place to seat himself and subsequently suffered a life-threatening heart attack.

There is near consensus in the judicial community that contempt proceedings must be used sparingly. Today, in most common law countries, contempt proceedings for criticising the judges are being rendered obsolete and this is largely due to the judiciary’s own stated position of restraint. In the US legal system, there is no provision in the law for scandalising the court; in the UK, too, such a provision has hardly been used in modern times. The judges have made these laws redundant, through their own texts. Lord Alfred Denning, one of the most influential judges of the last century, reiterated this view in one judgment as follows: “Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it.” In addition, to quote Justice Markandey Katju, a notable Indian justice: “The best shield and armour of a judge is his reputation of integrity, impartiality and learning. An upright judge will hardly ever need to use the contempt power in his judicial career.”

For a judiciary which is thriving in a democratic dispensation, this exaggerated use of the contempt laws calls for a reflection of the very state of this institution. The court’s selective application of contempt laws undermines political stability, democracy and freedom of expression but most importantly, the dignity and the respect of the courts themselves. The overuse of contempt proceedings inevitably leads to a clash of institutions, as it is through assertion of this law that the courts are seen to be appropriating the executive’s mandate, while they themselves do not seem to be accountable to any legal or constitutional authority except to themselves.

While the courts have succeeded in removing an elected prime minister and have been able to subdue a few others charged with contempt, how would they reign in the public whisperings, sentiments or even the chatter on the social and international media, which has become increasingly, even scathingly critical, to the extent that the three-member bench’s June 19 action has been termed by some as a coup, and that as I understand, means a seizure of power that is outside the law.

In the final analysis, judicial authority is far better served through judicial restraint rather than through the use of punitive contempt laws. I hope the courts, in the larger interest of promoting democracy, would exercise restraint and let the principle of separation of powers operate by recognising and upholding the parliamentary mandate to make and amend laws, and the executive to complete its term and letting the court of the people decide who has held whom in contempt.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 15th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Getting priorities straight</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/408320/getting-priorities-straight</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/408320/getting-priorities-straight#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jul 12 18:31:48 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[saroop.ijaz]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=408320</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[My primary objection is the manner in which Contempt law was passed in a matter of minutes without meaningful debate.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Suppose for a moment that the Constitution of Pakistan is unanimously amended by the Parliament and an article is inserted saying, “from here on in all military takeovers/coups are declared illegal and treasonous and no court of law shall legitimise such a takeover…”. High-minded as it would be, one needs to be fantastically gullible or hopelessly optimistic to believe that mere tinkering with some legal provisions is all that is required for uninterrupted democratic governance. This may seem odd to you coming from someone who makes his sustenance on legalese but law is not really all that it is made out to be and especially not what our media would lead (or perhaps, like) you to believe. Firstly, a military coup is by definition extra-constitutional (or to quote the Supreme Court from the past meta/supra-constitutional) and hence, it will be merely another clause violated and on most occasions, the khakis are not overly concerned about constitutional nuance anyways. Secondly, the courts would read such an article as creatively as they desire since interpretation is, admittedly, their prerogative. However, the hypothetical article would serve some purpose insofar as it will make it more embarrassing for the courts and maybe even for the military adventurers, although they are generally immune from such petty sensibilities.

The new Contempt of Court law is going to be struck down as being unconstitutional. I think one can say this with a degree of certainty that the only significant question is “when” and not “if”. I can understand and might even go so far as to empathise with the desire of the Federal Government to amend the Contempt of Court law, yet the manner in which it is done is neither desirable nor sustainable. We live in a society where far too much deference is showed to far too many people and judges being the primary beneficiary. One of the most amusing yet egregious examples of a recent contempt of court is when an Honourable Judge sentenced a senior government official for looking at him inappropriately or aggressively. The use of temperate language to criticise the judiciary (or anyone for that matter) is a welcome move. However, the grant of extended immunity to everyone covered under Article 248(1) of the Constitution is not a solution and without a constitutional amendment is very likely to be held as being unconstitutional, and perhaps rightly so.

The ostensible self-righteous and muscular posturing and infringement into Parliament’s domain by the Court has to be resisted, but here is exactly how not to fight it. My primary objection is to the manner in which the law was passed in a matter of minutes without meaningful debate. To many neutral observers it does seem that the Supreme Court has crossed multiple red lines multiple times in the past four years and a free and frank debate inside and outside of the Parliament would have strengthened the moral case of the Federal Government. The problem of viewing this contest as being a formal legal one is that one of the parties to the conflict, namely the judiciary, also has the power to not only interpret the rules but determine the winner. To restate the problem, making laws to make the judiciary less powerful or active in the absence of major constitutional overhaul overlooks the fact that the judiciary will eventually interpret and apply those laws. The debate on precisely what constitutes ‘contempt of court’ and equally ‘contempt of parliament’ would have had value in itself and may even have generated consensus. Our democracy is end-driven, losing sight of the fact that public debate and the process is a virtue in itself.

For the time being, we rely on My Lords to be temperate even if they don’t like this government (which they clearly don’t) to show composure. I say this especially after the chief justice recently made what may come across as being purely political tough-minded speeches asserting his right to strike down laws and even talking of martyrdom. Temperate language and restrain cannot and should not be a one-way street.

Coming back to the trope of public debate, recently a private member bill was drafted by Senator Farahtullah Babar to be tabled in the Senate. The primary objective of the bill was to bring the ISI under direct civilian control and make it directly accountable to the Prime Minister and the Parliament. It seems that the bill is not going to be tabled now and if that is true, it most certainly is a shame. The bill should be tabled, debated and voted upon, if only to determine where everyone stands on the issue. The question of why the ISI chief cannot or should not be a civilian does not have an answer as obvious as some people believe. Glibly resorting to the fact that the acronym ISI stands for Inter-Services Intelligence and it has to be a service man (which brings to mind the even more unfathomable question of whether it ever could be a woman, I know we are light years away from that) is hardly a serious answer, when one considers that the name has hardly restrained the service men from manipulating elections and creating political parties. In any event, if that is your best argument then by all means change the name of the agency.

I am not naïve to the extent of believing that this bill would become a law and bring the spooks under the direct control of the democratic government, yet it was/is an ideal opportunity to have that debate. One would be curious to know how television anchors proclaiming apocalypse every evening would react, how Difa-e-Pakistan Council would respond, would the Supreme Court declare it unconstitutional, etc. Worst case scenario is that such an attempt will infuriate the armed forces so much that they will attempt a military take over. Well, firstly that is a natural hazard of employment for an elected government in Pakistan. Secondly, and more significantly, that will be a considerably more honourable and valiant departure than for some manufactured excuse over the holdup created over the likes of the Contempt of Court Bill.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 15th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Unseemly haste</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/406285/unseemly-haste</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/406285/unseemly-haste#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 12 19:48:56 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[editorial]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Editorial]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=406285</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The law was literally thrust through parliament with a barge pole and no time was spent on discussing it.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The frenzied rush in which a new bill that protects top office-holders from contempt of court proceedings has been pushed through parliament is, to put it mildly, unseemly. The intention of the 23-clause law is clearly to prevent Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf meeting the same fate as his predecessor Yousaf Raza Gilani. With the NRO hearing scheduled for July 11, it is expected that fingers will remain glued to the fast forward button and the bill will be rushed through the Senate and then to President Asif Ali Zardai for his signature. Since Mr Ashraf obviously has no more intention than Mr Gilani of writing that letter to Swiss authorities, the government obviously fears the exit of another prime minister.

The new bill offers protection to ‘office-bearers’ holding high rank from contempt proceedings. These privileged office-bearers include the prime minister, federal ministers, the president, provincial chief ministers and governors. Remarks criticising the judiciary, made in ‘good intent’ will also not be considered contempt. The law replaces the previous standing of contempt on the statute book and is obviously a matter of immense debate in all circles. This is all the more so, since the law was literally thrust through parliament with a barge pole and no time was spent on discussing it, which was highly unfortunate considering the opposition put up by other parties.

The manner in which the whole affair has been handled could misfire badly. It is very likely, indeed almost certain, that the law will be challenged. The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudhry himself has warned of this in his comments about the degree of supremacy enjoyed by parliament. What we see ahead of us is the very real possibility of further confrontation between the judiciary and the executive. This will not be good for any one and it will be most damaging of all for democracy in our country, which is struggling to find some kind of foothold even now so that it can lever itself into a stronger position for the future. Hasty decisions made perhaps, in panic, can only hamper this process and hold back the stability we are trying to achieve in our country.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 11th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>My departure allowed continuity of democracy: Gilani</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/405015/my-departure-allowed-continuity-of-democracy-gilani</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/405015/my-departure-allowed-continuity-of-democracy-gilani#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jul 12 15:30:33 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=405015</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Former Prime Minister said that he was satisfied that the democratic government under his premiership.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Former Prime Minister and senior Vice Chairman of Pakistan People's Party Yousaf Raza Gilani on Saturday said that he chose to walk away from the Prime Minister's House after the Supreme Court verdict to ensure that the parliamentary system put in place by the democratic forces would continue to function and the Parliament completes its term.

Gilani, while talking to members from the PPP Human Rights Cell said that democracy provided the space within which people with different opinions and at times opposing views, could engage in a serious dialogue to resolve complex issues.

"Democracy encourages tolerance and continuity that is essence of a democratic system, which is important for the protection of fundamental freedom and human rights", he added.

The former Prime Minister said that he was satisfied that the democratic government under his premiership had initiated fundamental reforms in legislative, political, and economic domains that have strengthened democracy.

"The devolution of power to the provinces coupled with consensus the 7th NFC Award are some of the historic steps of my government, which have strengthened federation," he added.

Gilani further claimed that his government strengthened fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution by incorporating Article 25-A, which made primary education compulsory up to 16 years of age. Article 19-A, Right to Information and Article 10-A, Right to fair trial.

He said that the Parliament legislated on creation of National Commission for Human Rights and the government granted administrative and economic autonomy to the National Commission on Status of women.

Gilani said that minorities and women were his core constituencies and during four and a half years of his stay in office, legislation was undertaken for their empowerment.

He said that he was proud that there was not even a single political prisoner during his government and political freedom and independence of media were ensured.

Gilani said that the government took ground-breaking steps to address grievances of Balochistan through Agaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistan.

Besides Nafisa Shah, other members included Shaikh Mansoor, Rubina Qaimkhani, Dr Zile Huma, Shah Jahan Sarfraz Raja and ShaziaTehmas.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Detailed verdict: Speaker overstepped jurisdiction, says Apex court</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/403347/detailed-verdict-speaker-overstepped-jurisdiction-apex-court</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/403347/detailed-verdict-speaker-overstepped-jurisdiction-apex-court#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 12 23:53:51 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[azam.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=403347</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Fehmida Mirza tried to overrule contempt case verdict in spite of its finality, argues court.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[National Assembly Speaker Fehmida Mirza went beyond her jurisdiction by interfering in a concluded judgment, the Supreme Court stated in its detailed verdict in the speaker ruling case on Tuesday. The speaker ruling case is based on the contempt of court case against the then prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani.


The judgment, authored by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, rejected the objections raised by Gilani’s counsel Aitzaz Ahsan and Attorney General Irfan Qadir over the bench’s decision to convict Gilani and over the maintainability of the petitions.

The verdict agreed with the petitioners in the case – prominent amongst them, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). The chief justice held that the speaker need not have issued another verdict after a final one had been issued by the court. Instead, the court argued, she should have merely forwarded the matter to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

“The ruling of the speaker declaring that no question of disqualification of the respondent had arisen despite a concluded judgment of the apex court defied the principles of the independence of the judiciary and trichotomy of powers, and also constituted a violation of the due process clause under Article 10A of the Constitution,” the top judge of the country said, adding that all this has made it a case suitable for invoking the original jurisdiction of this court.

The verdict also mentioned that the wilful and deliberate defiance of a direction in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) case brought the entire country’s judiciary into ridicule.

The chief justice mentioned that since Gilani had not filed an appeal against his sentence, “the speaker had no judicial power to ignore the judgment dated 26 April, 2012 on the ground that no specific charge regarding propagation of any opinion or acting in any manner against the independence of judiciary or defaming, ridiculing the judiciary as contemplated by Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution had been framed.”

The court observed that surprisingly, the NA speaker had in fact effectively made an attempt to overrule the judgment.

The judgment also made it clear that like the speaker, the ECP cannot sit in appeal over a concluded judgment of a superior court, and has to affirm that the convicted person has become disqualified thereby rendering his seat vacant.

The fact that Gilani did not file an appeal also meant that the judgment and all its consequences attained finality, the verdict stated – including his disqualification from being a member of Parliament on and from the day of his conviction and sentence.

The judgment also recalled the concept of a trichotomy of powers, namely the legislature, executive and judiciary, in a democratic government. This trichotomy was therefore a result of the freedom people fought for in Pakistan, the court stated.


Published in The Express Tribune, July 4th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Speaker ruling case: Supreme Court issues detailed verdict</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/402912/pm-contempt-case-supreme-court-issues-detailed-verdict</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/402912/pm-contempt-case-supreme-court-issues-detailed-verdict#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 12 07:02:58 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[web.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=402912</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[SC says NA speaker did not need to issue another verdict, should have forwarded the matter to Election Commission.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, issued the detailed verdict in the speaker ruling case which was based on the contempt of court case against the then prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, Express News reported.

The verdict, which comprises 42 pages written in Urdu, gives reasons for the disqualification of the former prime minister including the fact that Gilani did not appeal against the verdict given earlier by the seven-member bench, making the decision “final”.

Also in the detailed verdict is a statement that says Speaker National Assembly Fehmida Mirza did not need to issue another verdict on what had been the final one by the court. Instead, according to the detailed verdict, she should have just forwarded the matter to the Election Commission of Pakistan.

On June 19, the court had declared Yousaf Raza Gilani ineligible to hold office, adding that he had been disqualified since April 26.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Gilani’s dismissal — of law and politics</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/402003/gilani%e2%80%99s-dismissal-%e2%80%94-of-law-and-politics</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/402003/gilani%e2%80%99s-dismissal-%e2%80%94-of-law-and-politics#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jul 12 17:40:45 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[nafisa.shah]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=402003</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Mr Gilani was defending state immunity, a legal principle on which rests the edifice of the state structure and power.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[In the anti-politics chatter, and within parties like the PML-N and the PTI, the rhetoric on the NRO case is this: that Yousaf Raza Gilani was saving Asif Ali Zardari, and that it is a matter of protecting 60 million dollars of corruption. This is akin to putting a spin to a very important constitutional issue that is at stake in this matter, which puts to risk the already shaky democracy in Pakistan.

What is imperative is to recognise that the former prime minister was disqualified defending parliamentary democracy, and not President Zardari. The latter, as an individual does not need that defence. If he needed that protection, Asif Ali Zardari would not have languished for 10 years as a trial prisoner, facing dozens of cases, and despite this long confinement, there were no convictions from the courts.

What Mr Gilani was defending is state immunity, a legal principle on which rests the edifice of the state structure and power. The prime minister took a stand for protecting and upholding the Constitution of Pakistan, more specifically Article 248(2), encompassing the principle of sovereign immunity.

The immunity clause is not to protect an individual but an office, specifically the office of the President, who, heading the state, is the sovereign. The executive, legislative, and judicial forms that constitute a state are conjoined in the office of the President. The president is the Supreme Commander of the armed forces and gives oath to the prime minister, to the cabinet, and to the chief justice of the Supreme Court. The president summons the parliament and signs into law all legislation carried out by parliament. The president confers medals — highest civil and military awards — and grants amnesty to those in prison serving death sentences. In other words, the president is a constitutional office epitomising all constitutive organs of the state.

Opening up litigation would not open up against a person, but against the state itself, exposing a constitutional office that brings together all the various offices of the state, including the parliament and the judiciary. Almost all common law states and parliamentary democracies protect the office of the monarch or the president. And almost all legal experts agree that the immunity clause needs no further clarity.

Some, however, argue that this immunity is something that the government should claim, others say that writing a letter to the Swiss authorities does not imply breach of immunity. The first argument defies logic, as the president is the formal appointing authority for the Supreme Court judges, and their removal, too, can only take effect through the president, so it is strange that the Supreme Court should ask the government to claim immunity for an authority that the Supreme Court chief justice takes his own oath from. The latter proposition is also weak, as writing a letter is the first step to a government calling for proceedings against its own president and, therefore, for instance, the Supreme Commander of our armed forces, in the time of war!

However, there is yet another argument, more political than legal but equally important.

If immunity of the head of the state becomes subject to interpretation, then not only the president, but the entire political set-up becomes vulnerable.

In Pakistan, the political class has always been subject to intense scrutiny, often by a non-elected elite, who have somehow escaped all accountability for their own wrongs. Judges and the armed forces have historically colluded to denigrate the political class and political systems often by using morally loaded rhetoric. Not allowing political space and institutions to flourish is the primary reason for the predicament we face today.

It has been rightly pointed out by various commentators that although Article 58 (2)(b) is gone, a subjective interpretation of article 248(2) read with some of the vague provisions of Articles 62 and 63 could be the new 58 (2)(b) through judicial means. In which case, the zealous celebration by the PTI and the PML-N over the dismissal of an elected prime minister enjoying the support of two-thirds of parliament by a three-member Supreme Court bench may be only encouraging a dangerous precedent of  which they could equally be the victims — or targets — in the future.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 2nd, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>PMs as sacrificial lambs</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/401622/pms-as-sacrificial-lambs</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/401622/pms-as-sacrificial-lambs#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 12 19:00:34 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[khaled.ahmed]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=401622</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Prime ministers of Pakistan are not safe from predation. They fear being unseated by judiciary in activist overdrive.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Being all-powerful doesn’t suit anyone. It suits those who live under it even less. It is Hobbesian in its mercilessness and is like Gilgamesh for those who support it. Restraint is the advice to those who become powerful. Those who are reduced to being lambs ready for slaughter endanger the world with their deep-seated victimhood. Restraint is exercised by the powerful to achieve moderation.

Power backed by principles of morality or law can be more dangerous because it gives no quarter. Moral or not, power needs the legitimising hand of restraint.

Markandey Katju, a former judge of the Supreme Court of India, commenting on the Pakistani Supreme Court’s dismissal of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, wrote in his article “Judicial responsibility and organs of state” published in this newspaper on June 27: “[Judicial restraint] is particularly necessary for the superior courts, because, of the three organs of the state (legislature, executive and judiciary), it is only the judiciary, which can determine the limits of jurisdiction of all the three organs. This great power must, therefore, be exercised by the judiciary with the utmost humility and self-restraint, otherwise the delicate balance of power in the Constitution will be upset and there will be chaos”.

Power springs from many sources, not all of them legitimate, but it is the powerful who must learn to keep it under control. The Indian Supreme Court and the 28 High Courts under it projected judicial power through public interest litigation for 20 years till 2010, mainly through the exercise of suo motu powers. In Pakistan, too, this has been the instrument of power projection.

Supreme Court lawyer Ashtar Ausaf Ali took exception to the Lahore High Court practice of the suo motu device. Writing in his article “The exercise of suo motu” that appeared in Dawn (March 30, 2010), he stated that the Supreme Court had in 1982 declared that a high court did not have suo motu powers. The outgoing Chief Justice of Lahore High Court in 2012 actually asserted that this power would not be henceforth exercised. In India, too, Justice Katju had similarly restrained the high courts of India.

In 2011, there were close to 1.52 million cases pending in Pakistani courts and approximately 84,700 cases were pending in the Lahore High Court alone because of the ‘activism’ of the then chief justice.

The activist judiciary of Pakistan is backed by the “people of Pakistan” and feels answerable to them. But the most intense protagonists are the lawyers whose allegiance easily morphs into violence. Because of the presence of functioning bars in the districts — Pakistan has over 133 of them — the lawyers’ movement could be called a grassroots movement.

It is in the small-city ‘mofussil’ where the individual citizen learns to believe in violence, substituting ‘monopoly of violence’ of a state with a weak writ. The police and the lawyers’ community usually hail from the small districts acclimatised to feudal violence. The judges cashiered by General (retd) Pervez Musharraf had to rely on the lawyers to increase the pressure on the government to restore them. As a result, the clout of the legal profession has increased vis-à-vis the magistracy in the districts.

The lawyers’ movement has used violence often directed against the police and the magistracy. By adjudicating the Lal Masjid case, the Supreme Court has also made itself safe from violence exercised by al Qaeda and the Taliban whose covert presence in Islamabad is quite daunting.

On the other hand, the prime ministers of Pakistan are not safe from predation. They fear being unseated by a judiciary in activist overdrive and fear being roughed up by the lawyers’ movement, to say nothing of being killed by the terrorists.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 1st, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>The PPP, the military or Imran Khan?</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/399960/the-ppp-the-military-or-imran-khan</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/399960/the-ppp-the-military-or-imran-khan#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 12 19:09:59 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[shahzad chaudhry]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=399960</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[It seems to me Zardari’s traits of fighter, have dictated various institutional clashes dominating current PPP term.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The rise of Raja Pervaiz Ashraf as the country’s new prime minister in the twilight of the PPP’s current government brings forth the clamour for fresh elections and a return to the electorate. Elections are due in less than a year, but how the Zardari/Raja duo holds out against the multifarious pressures on it from the various external and internal challenges will be the key to whether the current PPP government plays out its entire innings or is declared hurt. Will it, or will the military take its place, or whether Imran Khan wins the next election, as the curtain draws down on the PPP government, remains a moot point. Here is some prognostication.

The current stint of the PPP has been plagued with self-induced fears; and some of these have actualised in typical self-fulfilling prophecies. I was, perhaps, the first ambassador to host this leadership for a Saarc summit in Colombo in 2008, just a few months after the PPP had been elected to office. I saw fear and apprehension writ large over the face of the leadership as they rather tentatively measured their initial steps into power. And without doubt, their fear centred on how the military might treat them; such has been the historical record of the mutual animosity.

Perhaps, going a bit beyond my mandate, I proposed a certain approach which could develop a healthier relationship between the two. There had already been that initial assault, though, of placing Inter-Services Intelligence under the ministry of interior and then its sudden reversal; this was, much early into their tenure, the betrayal of an uneasy relationship.

If indeed Benazir Bhutto had been at the helm and had been this nervy, it would have been understandable, but when the stables of the party had been stocked anew with newer ensigns and top leadership that was more or less news, signs of such uncertainty had to do with something other than a historical basis. It seems to me that President Asif Ali Zardari’s traits of a fighter against the various odds that had bedevilled his life, more or less, have dictated the various institutional clashes that have dominated the current term of the PPP. Mr Zardari perceived the military, and then the judiciary, as his most probable nemeses. Hence, the ISI misadventure; the purported memo to the Americans by then-ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani; a continuous rendition of how the military just might unseat a democratic government while the signs of it were not even remote; and it’s now famed ‘bunkered’ mentality against some inevitable odds waiting to afflict it, have obsessed the PPP giving it a safety-first instinct taking away the initiative to work towards resolving the challenges which have only multiplied in the last four years. The same is the case with the way it has perceived the judiciary; whether it was the judgment on the National Reconciliation Ordinance or the Swiss money accounts, the reaction by the PPP has only been of predisposed defiance.

Yousaf Raza Gilani was sacrificed on the altar of these fears, and if there is time enough, so shall be Raja Pervaiz Ashraf. I wrote some time back that Mr Zardari’s instinct to perceive himself as the perpetual target had pushed him to establish concentric security circles around him, beginning with parliament, the prime minister and his close personal staff which would be the final offering before anyone can reach his person. Sadly, while it may be a saga of a person’s fight against his multifarious enemies using clever strategy, smart politics and expedient exploitation of a sense of loyalty among party-mates, what it has resulted in has been an abominable lack of governance, policy, vision and any kind of planning for the future. The track record of the current PPP government has shown that there never has been time for any of this, since most of the time its leadership seems to have been consumed by a continuous sense of a war against shadows, both past and perceived.

What of the title then? An aam admi that I am a client of once a month, is a great connoisseur of our politics. My background of the military and current occupation with the media makes for a deadly mix, and he partakes liberally of such opportunity. His wisdom defies his lack of a formal education and as much as anyone these days is stumped for answers to what any common man of Pakistan may ask of us, I, too, am mostly speechless when he rants and raves about how the elites have plundered his country and how they have singularly failed to do anything for the common man. He asks of me to convey to General Kayani that time may have come for him to hang his uniform if indeed there is nothing he can do or is willing to do about the current state of affairs. Some of his pearls of wisdom include asking me to convey the need for a policy to focus for the next 10 years only on education at the cost of everything else ensuring universal enrollment of all five-year-olds so that at least one generation of literates can be ensured which could then give us an educated and informed democracy. When I tell him there is no chance for a return of the military even if he loathes the possibility of the PPP winning yet another election, he wants to know if Imran could be the answer.

I wish I could offer him that assurance.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 28th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Stabilising the state</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/399428/stabilising-the-state</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/399428/stabilising-the-state#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 12 18:44:47 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[talat.masood]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=399428</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Perhaps, the best course to stabilise the situation would be for government to announce a date for early elections.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Recent events in Pakistan are likely to have a profound impact on its future. The case of Arsalan Chaudhry has brought to fore that nothing remains hidden for long under the broad and sharp gaze of the media.

As institutional and individual skeletons are being dragged out of the closet, the few idols and iconic structures that we still had faith in are crumbling one by one. The chief justice, who remains the last bastion of justice, is facing embarrassment due to his son’s misdeeds. The DHA–Bahria contract has turned out to be a scam of mammoth proportions. And erstwhile prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, after remaining in the eye of the storm, was disqualified on the Supreme Court’s orders, which indeed was an earth-shaking event. These are not isolated cases but part of a broader, deeper malaise that afflicts the nation.

As our crisis worsens, no institution can pretend to be sacrosanct and above board unless it really is. And no individual or institution — the judiciary, military, politicians, business tycoons or the media — can claim immunity against accountability anymore. The forces released by the information technology revolution and a highly interconnected world have broken the barriers that once ensured some degree of impunity. Moreover, the concept that some institutions are more equal than others, or more worthy of respect, is also progressively being demolished.

These are not ordinary changes in the Pakistani environment, where too many still take it for granted that anyone can be bought out with money or power. Moreover, these developments are good for Pakistan in the long-term because our greatest weakness has been the duplicity in our behaviour — not applying the same standards to oneself that we demand from others. Just as market forces bring about corrections to economies in distress, so our institutions and society as a whole are finding self-correcting mechanisms to check failing institutions and individuals. We are now witnessing institutions — autonomously or in concert — apply checks and balances on one another: the moment one institution becomes too powerful it is likely to be checkmated. In the process, these institutions and their leaders, too, often play politics and advance their own narrow interests.

The challenge we face as a country is clear: how do we keep Pakistan in a fairly stable condition as old power structures collapse and institutions falter? It seems only too likely that the current turbulence could lead to widespread anarchy. Why? Two reasons stand out: our societal transformation is taking place in a leadership vacuum (and those who oppose change have a high stake in maintaining the status quo). Second, no institution has sufficient credibility and moral authority to guide us and show the way forward.

If Pakistan has to break from its past, then it should work for the victory of those forces that truly want to uphold the rule of law and create a society based on merit. The growing pressure for the accountability of institutions from the media — and from every walk of life in this country — should lead to collective introspection and compel the nation to redefine itself. Although rebuilding and redefining institutions is not easy, it is urgently needed. The clock is ticking louder than ever: our economy faces a meltdown, our current political leadership is incapable of taking hard decisions and a failure to act is simply not an option for a nuclear power.

How do we sanitise and transform the state when there is no leadership on the horizon of anything like the stature of a Nelson Mandela? Our dilemma is made worse when the present leadership’s only interest is personal profit that has given rise to a serious crisis of legitimacy. In the past, we took the simplistic approach of inviting the army in when events got out of control. But people are not prepared to accept a replay of that role anymore. Experience has shown that involvement of the military creates more problems than it solves in the long-term. The overreaching role of the judiciary is equally resented (most people would rather have judges provide justice to ordinary people than to play an outsized role in high profile political cases).

Perhaps, the best course to stabilise the situation would be for the government to announce a date for early elections. In the interim, it seems time has come for a caretaker civilian government of technocrats and men of integrity that enjoy the confidence of major political parties and can steer and hold the country through these very challenging times.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 27th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Judicial responsibility and organs of state</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/399427/judicial-responsibility-and-organs-of-state</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/399427/judicial-responsibility-and-organs-of-state#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 12 18:29:27 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[markandey.katju]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=399427</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[I strongly felt for some time, Pakistan SC had embarked on perilous path of confrontation with political authorities.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[After my article about the constitutional misbehaviour of the Pakistan Supreme Court was published in The Hindu (June 21), I received several queries and objections regarding it. Hence an explanation is called for, which I am giving below:

The first objection is that the British Constitutional principle, “The King can do no wrong” applies to a monarchy, not a republic. My answer is that I am well aware that Pakistan, like India is a republic. However, in both these countries, total immunity from criminal prosecution is granted to the President. Thus, Section 248(2) of the Pakistan Constitution states: “No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or Governor in any Court during his term of office.” Article 361(2) of the Indian Constitution is identically worded.

One may ask, why should this immunity be given to the President and Governor when all other citizens have to face criminal prosecution for a crime? The answer is that in the real, practical, world there are no absolutes. The British, who were one of the most far-sighted administrators the world has known, realised from their long, historical experience that if the King was dragged to a law court, put up on a witness box, made to face a criminal trial, and sent to jail if found guilty, the system could not function. Hence, an exception has to be made to the general rule and immunity granted to the person at the apex of the constitutional system. We, in India and Pakistan, have followed the British principle instead of the American principle (in the US Constitution there is no such immunity granted to the president).

The second objection is that this immunity is only to the official acts of the president, not his personal acts. This again is a specious argument. There is no such distinction made in the provision and the use of the word ‘whatsoever’ strengthens this view. If we accept this objection we will be adding the words ‘except for his personal acts’ after the word ‘whatsoever’ in Article 248(2). It is a settled principle of interpretation that one should neither add, nor delete, words in a statute.

The third objection is that after the National Reconciliation Ordinance was declared unconstitutional by the court, criminal cases can continue against Mr Zardari. This is not correct. Article 248(2) says that not only can no criminal proceedings can be instituted against the president, but also that none can be continued. Hence, even if a criminal case had been instituted against Mr Zardari before he took oath as president, it cannot continue as long he is the President.

The fourth objection is that Mr Zardari’s very election was illegal since the NRO was declared unconstitutional. There are several replies to this objection. Firstly, Article 41(6) of the Pakistan Constitution states: “The validity of an election of the President shall not be called in question by or before any Court or other authority.” Secondly, the period of limitation for challenging such election has long expired. Thirdly, the eligibility for being elected a president is mentioned in Article 41, and the disqualification in Article 63. How was Mr Zardari ineligible?

The fifth objection relates to the court’s order disqualifying and effectively removing Yousaf Raza Gilani from the post of prime minister. Reliance is placed on Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution which says that a person is disqualified from being a member of parliament if he is convicted for defaming or ridiculing the judiciary. In my opinion, it is not every conviction which disqualifies a person under this provision. We have to see the nature of the act which led to the conviction. If the prime minister had attributed some corrupt or ulterior motive to the Court, it would certainly have been defamatory and if he had called the Court ‘stupid’, it would have been ridiculing the Court. But as far as I know, Mr Gilani has done none of these things. Instead, he respectfully told the Court that it had no jurisdiction to pass orders which would directly or indirectly violate Article 248(2). How is this defamation of the Court? If this is regarded as defamation, then whenever a lawyer tells a Court that it has no jurisdiction that lawyer can be hauled up for contempt of court and sent to jail.

Moreover, this proposition enunciated by the Supreme Court can be very dangerous for democracy, because if the chief justice and his companion judges wish to oust a prime minister (hypothetically, because of personal animosity or some other reason) they have only to pass an order without jurisdiction and if the prime minister objects to it, they can convict him for contempt of court and then disqualify him. This will make the Supreme Court a superior body above the other two organs of the state, instead of only one of the three equal coordinate organs.

In all countries having a parliamentary system of government, the prime minister holds office as long he has the confidence of parliament, not the confidence of the Supreme Court.

I regret to say that for quite some time, the Pakistan Supreme Court seems to be playing to the galleries and not exercising the self-restraint expected of superior courts.

I wish to make it clear that I am not a political person and, in particular, I have nothing to do with the politics of Pakistan. I personally do not know Mr Zardari or Mr Gilani and I am neither for nor against them. I expressed my views purely from a legal and constitutional angle because I strongly felt that for some time, the Pakistan Supreme Court had embarked on a perilous path of confrontation with the political authorities which would lead to disastrous consequences for the country.

When former General Pervez Musharraf removed the chief justice, we Indians condemned this attack on democracy and we were happy when he was reinstated. However, subsequently he and some of his companion judges have acted in a manner which has prompted my concern as expressed in this piece of writing.

In my judgment in Divisional Manager, Aravalli Golf Course vs. Chander Haas (which can be seen online) I have emphasised the need for judicial restraint. This is particularly necessary for the superior courts, because of the three organs of the state (legislature, executive and judiciary), it is only the judiciary which can determine the limits of jurisdiction of all the three organs. This great power must, therefore, be exercised by the judiciary with the utmost humility and self-restraint, otherwise the delicate balance of power in the constitution will be upset and there will be chaos.

I do not mean to say that judges should never be activist. In certain exceptional circumstances where the public interest strongly demands judges may be activist, but ordinarily they should be self-restrained. In particular, judges should ordinarily avoid entering the political thicket, as Justices Holmes, Brandeis and Frankfurter of the US Supreme Court strongly advocated.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 27th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Not in my name</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/399008/not-in-my-name</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/399008/not-in-my-name#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 12 17:12:44 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[feisal.h.naqvi]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=399008</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Democracy is a process. If you do not let that process operate, it will never be able to fix itself.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[I wrote last week that the people of Pakistan were getting exceedingly impatient in their wait for the fruits of democracy. I do not think that the appointment of Raja Pervaiz Ashraf as PM has helped things. If anything, it reminds me of that famous scene from The Naked Gun in which John Houseman, playing a driving instructor, instructs his student on how to properly respond to a rude trucker. “All right, Stephanie, gently extend your arm. Extend your middle finger. Very good. Well done.”

Pakistan, these days, is in the grip of an acute energy crisis. Many small businesses are being forced to shut down because of massive power outages. Protests against loadshedding are now not just routine, but routinely violent. Even the Government of Punjab, Pakistan’s largest province, supports these protests, though it claims to deprecate the accompanying violence. Lack of electricity is thus certainly one of the most important public policy problems in Pakistan.

Before becoming the prime minister, Raja Pervaiz Ashraf’s most prominent position was as the federal minister for water and power, a position which he occupied from February 2008, all the way up till February 2011. Raja Sahib not only failed singularly in alleviating loadshedding, but acquired an unenviable reputation as the “Baghdad Bob” of Islamabad, forever making ludicrous pronouncements about how the end of loadshedding was around the corner.

Our new prime minister was also regarded as the main mover behind the decision to try and solve the power crisis through rental power projects. This policy was a byword for corruption from day one, with Pakistanis being treated to the incongruous sight of one federal minister (Faisal Saleh Hayat) repeatedly and publicly accusing a fellow member of the cabinet (Raja Pervaiz Ashraf) of being a crook. Subsequently, the Supreme Court got into the act and shot down the policy in a scathing decision, which called — amongst other things — for the criminal prosecution of Raja Pervaiz Ashraf and his placement on the Exit Control List.

Leaving aside issues of criminality, Raja Sahib’s embrace of the rental power policy raised fundamental issues of competence. Pakistan already has sufficient installed capacity to meet its demands. What Pakistan does not have is the ability to pay for the electricity being generated because, on average, we sell electricity for less than the average cost of producing and distributing it. In these circumstances, signing short-term contracts to buy even more expensive electricity was hardly a smart move.

Given these facts, one thing is clear. I’m not sure what political considerations President Asif Ali Zardari took into account before he finalised the name of Raja Pervaiz Ashraf. But clearly, giving a damn about what non-jiyalas might think was not one of them.

At the same time, let me make one thing absolutely clear. I do not like the PPP. I really, really, really wish that Pakistan was not held hostage by their stupidities. But I do not want anybody other than the people of Pakistan to throw them out.

It has become fashionable for us to bemoan our lack of leaders. If anything, we have the opposite problem; i.e., a surfeit of would-be messiahs. In Pakistan, every person who clambers to the top of a particular heap immediately assumes that he is the institution, not just the incumbent. What I would like to see instead, just once, is some degree of humility; so that criticism of the PPP does not become an attack on democracy; and so that queries regarding Arsalan Iftikhar are not treated as the equivalent of an armed assault on the Supreme Court. All of us, our leaders included, are subordinate to the Constitution and the values enshrined in it. It would be good if our leaders could remember that.

In his book, The Decisive Moment, Jonah Lehrer talks about how the ability to learn from our mistakes is, quite literally, the basis of our human intelligence. He illustrates this point by referring to two different computers. In 1997, IBM built a computer called “Deep Blue”, which became the first machine to ever defeat the reigning chess champion of the world. Deep Blue operated through brute force, analysing more than 200 million possible moves per second. And while it won against Garry Kasparov, the battle between man and machine was close.

The software wizards who came up with TD Gammon, a backgammon programme, adopted a completely different approach. Unlike Deep Blue, their programme started off with essentially zero knowledge. At the same time, unlike Deep Blue, TD Gammon also has the ability to learn from its mistakes. The programme was set up to play against itself and after a few hundred thousand games, it had learnt so much that it was able to consistently beat the best humans in the world.

In terms of Pakistan’s political options, the Deep Blue approach is analogous to the benefits of a technocratic government: take the best people with the most knowledge and throw them at a particular problem. The TD Gammon approach, by contrast, represents the promise of democracy. It starts off incompetent and unskilled. But because it has the ability to learn from its mistakes, it eventually reaches a standard of excellence unattainable by pure technocrats.

My point here is simple: democracy is a process. If you do not let that process operate, it will never be able to fix itself. Instead, all that we will be left with is the endless iteration of the cycle in which we have already wasted 65 years.

Let me be clearer still. I have the highest respect for the superior judiciary but I did not vote for them. I did vote for this execrable government and while I may now regret that vote, the fact remains that Raja Pervaiz Ashraf was voted in by my elected representatives. I do not want him thrown out by somebody I didn’t vote for.

I doubt if any of the people plotting in the shadows give a damn about what I think. Nonetheless, since I am on record as noting that the people of Pakistan are running out of patience, let me make my position clear. Don’t do it, your Lordships. Not in my name.

Published In The Express Tribune, June 26th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>The non-partisan discomfort</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/398596/the-non-partisan-discomfort</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/398596/the-non-partisan-discomfort#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jun 12 17:37:17 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Ejaz Haider]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=398596</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Taking sides is comfortable. It implies finished business, one’s position secured, the other viewpoint rubbished.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Taking sides is comfortable. It implies finished business, one’s position secured, the other viewpoint rubbished. One is as young as one’s faith, as old as one’s doubts. We all look for certainty: it’s a compulsion.

The Supreme Court has done well to send home a prime minister who wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court. Case closed. The SC has, as is its wont now, overreached. The PPP government has acted gracefully and bowed to the verdict. This act has strengthened democracy. Case closed.

These are secure positions. One nestles comfortably in front of one’s fireplace on a cold winter night, shutting the cold out. The surroundings are cosy and known, secure from the treacherous unknown that lies outside.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with this approach. We all like to put our own spin on things and create a known world. We develop habits, stick to them, get addicted and hate to see our world crumble. But sometimes situations are more complex than how we would like to see them. The current clash between an intransigent executive and an overreaching judiciary falls into that category. Unless one is a partisan, it is not easy to create a linear, coherent discourse here.

Yousaf Raza Gilani should not have been convicted for contemning the Court and disqualified. The SC/Opposition partisan will not like this statement and will point to how corrupt the PPP government is, how ineffective Gilani was, how much money he allegedly made and so on. But that misses the point. The SC was not dealing with Gilani’s inefficiencies of which he was fraught with. Instead, the SC sentenced him for not writing a letter, an issue on which jurists remain divided.

On the other hand, the government did not cover itself in glory by constantly frustrating the judiciary and trapping it through delaying and diversionary tactics. The PPP partisan would point to the Court’s bias against the party and the president, Asif Ali Zardari, its penchant for overreaching through suo motu notices, its inordinate ambition to encroach upon the domains of the executive and the legislature. That misses the point again.

The Court was dealing, correctly, with the issue in view of its judgement on the NRO. It asked the government repeatedly to present its (government’s) case clearly. But clarity was not part of the government’s strategy. The president shielded himself through a prime minister who was ultimately expendable and forced the Court to play the PPP’s hand.

Politically, this was a smart strategy. Smarter still is the move to finally, after having thoroughly frustrated the Court, to accept its decision. The government can now say that it respects the law. But the non-partisan knows that this respect is part of the government’s strategy to discredit the Court. In the middle of all this, the letter itself, whether or not it can be written, is largely forgotten.

It is now clear that the executive and the judiciary are out of joint and at loggerheads. This is what has generated the current tussle between the political and legal sovereigns. For the non-partisan it is difficult to take sides in this conflict. Neither the government nor the SC, in their functioning, can be graded well.

The SC has overreached in this and many other cases; it has taken it upon itself to enter the choppy waters of public policymaking; while it claims to cleanse the Augean stables, its own reputation has been tainted, not just through the alleged dealings of the CJP’s son with an unsavoury real estate tycoon, but also through rumours about the dubious assets of some other honourable judges. It has failed in its duty to help the executive reform the judiciary at the lower levels, which is where justice must be seen to be done and quickly for the commons.

As for the government, while it takes credit for surviving a full term, it is likely to go down in the country’s history as the most dysfunctional government ever, at least in terms of governance. Its apathy to public policy and the public has become legendary and can be measured only in contrast to its ability to run rings around the opposition and its own allies. Exhibit: its choice of new premier, a man tainted and nicknamed ‘Raja Rental’.

This is the fractured ground in which one has to base one’s analysis. The partisans, as I have noted, have the luxury of entrenched positions. The non-partisan, for the most part, are despondent. The general sense is that the system is not working. And, in many ways, it is not. The problem then is to see if one can identify some positive strands in all this. I must confess to a degree of optimism at the macro level despite the great confusion that currently reigns.

While our branches of government may be locked in conflict, the current phase of instability should eventually lead to a balance of sorts, so long as the game is played in and through the constitutional framework. No one is playing for balance wittingly but it will come, by and by. People are expressing themselves through various means. This cacophony, at least as far as the urban centres are concerned, must translate into an electoral exercise at some point. It would be interesting to see the numbers. On the ground, even some degree of violence (rioting, for instance) should help instill among the rulers, whoever they might be, a sense of enlightened self-interest.

It is almost impossible in human affairs to identify the path to a grand equilibrium: too many things interact in unpredictable ways and the paradox always strikes. Even so, if our governments were to take some interest in public policy and make intelligent decisions, a big if I admit, that would go a long way towards creating stability. Many of the reforms identified for Pakistan are eminently doable. What our extractive elites now need to consider is whether they can still afford to do nothing, because the cost of inaction is steadily increasing.

Published in The Express Tribune, 25th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>A new PM — and what next?</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/398187/a-new-pm-%e2%80%94-and-what-next</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/398187/a-new-pm-%e2%80%94-and-what-next#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jun 12 17:14:17 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[raza.rumi]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=398187</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Let the people judge the performance of the PPP and its allies and boot them out of power if they haven’t delivered.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[After much speculation and rumour-mongering, the National Assembly has chosen a new prime minister. The choice came as a surprise. Raja Pervez Ashraf was not known as the best of ministers; his record as a minister for water and power was not enviable. This is why a cross section of people have criticised the choice made by the PPP. Why would the party further ruin its image in the election year? Perhaps, Raja is easy to sacrifice. Having said that, the media histrionics of calling the new prime minister ‘Raja Rental’ is unfortunate. It undermines the rule of law as the NAB inquiry against the new prime minister is still underway.

The nomination of Makhdum Shahabuddin, the top choice for the prime ministerial slot, was scuttled by the issuance of a timely arrest warrant by the ANF. It seems that the judiciary has a clear stance on the PPP government and the security establishment is also not on the latter’s side.

How serious is this putsch? This is not the first time that such a situation has risen. At least four such moves were made in the recent past. At the time of the judges’ restoration in 2009, the country reached a tipping point and the last minute retreat by all those concerned allowed for the continuation of the system. Second, when the Kerry-Lugar legislation was passed in the US, the civilian government was curiously declared as the initiator and author of the bill and a massive propaganda campaign was launched against it. Gradually, the parties concerned retreated. In the aftermath of the court verdict on the National Reconciliation Ordinance, the continuation of the civilian government was in question but did not take place. Finally, the last major attempt was to implicate the president in the alleged unsigned memo appealing to the US for helping gain civilian control of governance. Pakistan’s ambassador to the US was sacrificed in reaching a settlement and the plan was abandoned.

Three fundamental realities have somehow helped the PPP sail through the past four years. Firstly, the opposition leader Nawaz Sharif has been unwilling to rock the system. He has understood that his own political fortunes rest on the continuation of the electoral process. Second, the effective check of the media and the courts against extraconstitutional options has reinforced the general lack of appetite for a military regime after a decade under Musharraf. Finally, the international and regional opinion is also clear: most of Pakistan’s friends, allies and neighbours have been keen on seeing civilian control of institutions and have supported its nascent democracy.

The disqualification of an elected PM, however, is the first serious blow to the PPP government. Its earlier complacency to complete its tenure and hold the elections under its control now stands challenged. Whether the current standoff with the unelected arms of the state will result in a truncation of the democratic process, as is feared by some, remains to be seen. The new prime minister is most likely to uphold the party’s position and not comply with the SC’s directives. This will lead to another ouster and perhaps will push the country towards a situation where elections and caretaker arrangements will be required.

Mian Nawaz Sharif would like an early election and is not likely to accept any other alternative. Hence, the creation of a caretakers’ government beyond three months is an unfeasible option. As for the outside world, it views Pakistan’s infighting as worrisome. Washington is getting increasingly jingoistic and even reasonable people there are asking for punitive action.

Pakistan’s civil-military power players need to appreciate the gravity of the situation. They must renegotiate the terms on which the new elections will be held. They should also not be tempted by a repeat of the 1990s when democracy was turned into a sham by repeated palace intrigues and dubious electoral arrangements. The country needs to move on.

The civilian government, at best, has six months before it’s time for election. Let the people judge the performance of the PPP and its allies and boot them out of power if they haven’t delivered. Neither the military, nor the judiciary can do this under the Constitution.

Published In The Express Tribune, June 24th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Gilani going, Gilani gone!</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/398182/gilani-going-gilani-gone</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/398182/gilani-going-gilani-gone#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jun 12 16:54:15 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[khaled.ahmed]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=398182</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Should we celebrate? Or, should we ponder survivability of Pakistan, which still looks suspiciously like a democracy?]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani is finally defrocked and sent home by the Supreme Court. His was a troubled tenure, full of bad governance and corruption. His ministers were addicted to crookedness and so was his family. He was not awfully bright, but that is Pakistan’s norm rather than an aberration.

The nation saw him leave amid an energy crisis, the likes of which it had never seen. Punjab, its love torn between Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif, hated him. In other provinces, too, he did not have many supporters. His allies on whose vote he began prime minister kept swaying in their loyalty.

As ex-speaker of the National Assembly, he had to go to jail for doling out jobs to favourites. He made dubious friends there and got them juicy appointments when he became the PM. His holy-looking Hajj minister is cooling his sacred heels in jail for squeezing money out of the most holy ritual of Islam.

His sons were constantly rumoured to intervene in the system to enrich themselves. His wife got a huge bank loan written off. He was not articulate and frequently shot himself in the foot as an interviewee. TV comedians, called bhaands, would have starved without the routines they could lampoon. There was a veritable joke industry based on his gaffes.

If Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had brains and could speak, he soon proved that it could be dangerous to have a big-mouth leader in a small-sized state. Mohammad Khan Junejo was tongue-tied but he was the best. Corruption in Pakistan is a Third World sickness. Comparable with India’s, our corruption has a different aetiology. Insecurity inclines our politicians to graft.

Gilani had to live under an army habituated to calling shots in foreign policy. The PPP was soon called upon to be deftly accommodative with neighbours and global powers. Instead, the army used all kinds of brainwashing — via TV anchors — to bring the national focus on honour, rather than opportunity. Gilani was hamstrung also by the condition of living under a bifurcated party authority. To that extent, he felt less responsible.

Gilani ran a country with an eroded writ of the state, which was not his fault. Ignoring the ‘enemy within’ meant looking for enemies abroad. The PPP was cowed by an al Qaeda-Taliban overlordship of Pakistan with its command line running through religious parties, the madrassa network, and non-state actors — the last named, once again, becoming strategically important because of the army’s break with the US.

The first toe was stubbed in 2008 after the Mumbai attacks when the PPP felt it could flex its parliamentary muscle. It asserted its right to handle the Mumbai incident cooperatively with India but was made to crouch in canine submission behind the ISI. The army had learned to be cautious with the PML-N on the basis of fear: fear in the breast of the army chief because of a shared narrative. Its abhorrence of the PPP was irrepressible and the PPP’s obedience was not enough to allay it.

Confused by events it could not interpret, the army went for the jugular with memogate, knowing beforehand how the Supreme Court will find. Gilani faced contempt because he could not let Asif Ali Zardari be immolated to the fury of an activist, encroaching judiciary. His government was dysfunctional as the economy went into successive nosedives because the country had no electricity. Who could pause from street vandalism to appreciate the niceties of the Eighteenth Amendment and the new NFC Award?

Gilani was always ‘going’ on the basis of the loaded dice described above; now, he is gone. Should we celebrate? Or, should we ponder the survivability of Pakistan, which still looks suspiciously like a democracy?

Published In The Express Tribune, June 24th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Pakistan’s sad record</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/398194/pakistan%e2%80%99s-sad-record</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/398194/pakistan%e2%80%99s-sad-record#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jun 12 16:46:28 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[aakar.patel]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=398194</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The tradition of democratically elected leaders being ejected through undemocratic methods seems set to continue.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan's record, now 65 years old, of forcing its prime ministers out remains undisturbed.

Yousaf Raza Gilani was the 23rd consecutive Pakistani leader to be ejected before his time. This is a remarkable tribute to both Pakistan's desire to be a democracy and its incompetence at managing it.

If Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry continues to insist that the government send the Swiss letter and if the PPP insists it will not "prosecute the grave of Benazir Bhutto", Pakistan might lose its best chance to have an elected national assembly finish its full term.

Along with Nepal, which has been a republic for just four years, Pakistan is the only state in South Asia to never have a prime minister finish his term.

The man who served longest was Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan's first prime minister, who was killed in 1951. This brought a chain of unelected leaders who fought among themselves while failing to produce a constitution.

Malik Ghulam Muhammad is mentioned in the records of Mahindra &amp; Mahindra, where he was a partner, with great reverence, but Ayub Khan describes him in his autobiography as a wicked old man who cackled incomprehensibly (I was taken aback to learn that Ghulam Muhammad was only 61 when he died). He booted out Pakistan's first Bengali prime minister, Khawaja Nazimuddin. Iskandar Mirza got rid of the second and third Bengali prime ministers, Mohammad Ali Bogra (who might have kept Pakistan united) and HS Suhrawardy, who was disliked in India because of the carnage in Calcutta on Direct Action Day, but was probably a better leader than Liaquat.

The first Punjabi prime minister, Chaudhry Muhammad Ali lasted only a year and Pakistan's first and only Gujarati prime minister, II Chundrigar, lasted two months. Feroz Khan Noon was the last prime minister before the long intervention of Ayub Khan. Samuel Huntington was infamous for his clash of civilisations theory, but he was also an early enthusiast of Pakistani strongmen. He compared Ayub to the Athenian lawgiver Solon, because of his constitution, Pakistan's second, which brought "grassroots democracy", a claim that Musharraf would repeat.

Under General Yahya Khan, Pakistan's fourth and last Bengali prime minister Nurul Amin came and went as the country was partitioned in 1971.

The Baloch Bhutto was a very charismatic man and, therefore, loved or hated. He led the best cabinet in Pakistan's history. Even today, 40 years later, the best books about the working of Pakistan's politics are those written by Bhutto's men, Rafi Raza, Mubashir Hasan and later Khalid Hasan and Iqbal Akhund. Another very fine book is Sherbaz Mazari's memoir, in which he describes how Khair Buksh Marri, being the bigger wadero, humiliated Bhutto by repeatedly turning his face away from him when offered the job of governor.

History has been unkind to Bhutto even though he was hanged, but he did produce a very good constitution, Pakistan's third, later wrecked by amendments, including the infamous second one against Ahmadis.

The long night under Zia had one prime minister, the Sindhi Junejo. The dawn of Benazir (how young and fresh she looks in her photographs in those early years) was stained very soon. Would Pakistan be different today if she were alive? Saroop Ijaz spoke for many Pakistanis, when he wrote that “we live in the wreckage of her death”.

Nawaz Sharif wrote an embarrassingly fawning tribute to Zia in a book compiled after the general died, and he should be shown his words every so often. He is a difficult man to understand, sometimes pragmatic, other times stubborn. After the Osama incident and the attack on Karachi's naval base, he set about demanding accountability from General Kayani, but soon backed out as he understood the national consensus in favour of the army.

It is thought that Sharif has matured enough to be a good leader if he gets another chance.

In the years when he and Benazir rotated around the prime minister's chair also came the four caretaker prime ministers — Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, Moeen Qureshi, Malik Meraj Khalid and Balkh Sher Mazari. One of them — I cannot remember which one — had a cabinet of professionals that included men of the stature of Najam Sethi.

Gen Musharraf called himself Chief Executive (he said that one of his lt-generals had suggested the title and he had liked it) to take the edge off his coup. His prime ministers were Zafarullah Jamali, who displayed very little energy, Chaudhry Shujaat as caretaker and then Shaukat Aziz. Someone — I think my friend Khalid Hasan — nicknamed him 'Shortcut'. Both he and Musharraf are gone, never to return despite the promises.

Muhammad Mian Soomro then became caretaker prime minister, by my count Pakistan's seventh, before the PPP took power. Yusuf Raza Gilani almost made it across the line before being tripped up by the Supreme Court and Raja Pervez Ashraf now must wait to see how long he will be in office.

Pakistan's prime ministers have always, and without exception, been removed through external intervention. What used to be a system where power was shared uneasily between army and civil society now has a third force. An energised judiciary is backed by a free media that insists on accountability only from the elected.

Pakistan's tradition of democratically elected leaders being ejected through undemocratic methods seems set to continue.  

Published In The Express Tribune, June 24th, 2012. ]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Please, not again</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/398189/please-not-again</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/398189/please-not-again#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jun 12 16:32:08 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[saroop.ijaz]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=398189</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Supreme Court does not represent will of the people, Court repeatedly saying so to the contrary does not change it.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[It is always slightly discomforting when one is deprived of a metaphor or an agreed upon symbol. ‘Dictatorship’ — of the Pakistani variety — has been defined over the years and now we have the definition down cold, it is almost an intuition now, for e.g., it is khaki in colour, comes from the GHQ etc. However, in the past few days, the term, ‘judicial dictatorship’ is making the rare appearance here and there. This is, admittedly, an awkward term and also perhaps, inaccurate since it seems to suggest that judiciary as a collective is becoming dictatorial. Over the past four years, the authority and decorum of all courts in Pakistan except the Supreme Court has seen tremendous erosion, with lawyers routinely beating judges up in civil courts and using ‘non-parliamentary’ language in the High Courts. There is no point in euphemism now, hence somewhat more precise would be the even more clumsy phrase, ‘dictatorship of the Supreme Court’ or some permutation thereof.

The Pakistan Supreme Court has sent an elected prime minister home. This in itself is disturbing, however, permissible it may be under some circumstances. What is infinitely more worrying is the fact that the Supreme Court did not feel itself constrained by the procedure of law. The argument that the order of the Speaker cannot overrule the Court is a very decent one, yet does not explain why the Court ignored the clear provisions of the Constitution to send the matter to the Election Commission of Pakistan. There is also the issue of the three-member bench making a mockery of the seven-member bench. However, there is a vaguely linear progression to all of this. The Supreme Court terminated the employment of  “PCO” judges without reference to the Supreme Judicial Council, which was allowed to go unexamined. More recently, when memberships of members of parliament were suspended for dual nationality, again without reference to the Election Commission of Pakistan, not enough noise was created. Demagogy has a tendency of being incremental sometimes; they have tested the waters and now found it appropriate for a splash. It is likely to get worse now, it always does.

Even now there is a curious reluctance to unequivocally condemn, or mildly speaking, criticise the judgment of the Supreme Court. Yousaf Raza Gilani and his maladministration is not the issue here, the issue is considerably more fundamental, namely the right of the people to elect their representatives and also to send them home. The Supreme Court does not represent the will of the people and the Court repeatedly saying so to the contrary would not change that. Let me also say this about the law of contempt, if the Court in fact does believe that it represents the will of the people then it will have to make its peace with the fact, that people talk and also talk back.

The problem with the perception of selective justice is that it compromises all justice. The contempt proceedings against the corps commander at the time of November, 2007 emergency have not really taken off, the IG FC has still not appeared in Court, the Asghar Khan petition is still pending, the case of Dr Arsalan Iftikhar is not being heard daily (the cynic might also raise the issue of the timing of the PM’s disqualification as a diversionary tactic from the focus on the fantastic entrepreneurial success of Dr Arsalan Iftikhar). Remaining on timing, does anyone else find it strange that the arrest warrants of one of the designated candidates for prime minister are issued as soon as his name is proposed? It does push the ordinary serendipity of coincidence a bit. None of this maybe personal, however, it certainly gives that impression.

Leo Tolstoy begins Anna Karenina with: “Happy families are all alike, every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” It is painfully ironic to see how the Supreme Court has gone the full circle and joined the ranks of the previous “Happy families” of Pakistan. From sending judges of the superior courts to now sending the prime minister of Pakistan home. The anger at the slightest bit of criticism by the media resembles our gallant masters of the past. The impatience and not feeling the need to give reasons, the short orders, grand poetic epitaphs and ‘because I say so’ arm-waving and desk thumping. There is a visual image of a few days ago, which does concentrate into a microcosm the similarity. It was a video on some television channel of the Pemra chairman standing with his hands almost tied in front like an orderly, a man obviously broken and being humiliated in a room filled with judges either reclining or leaning in with contempt. I wonder nobody, not one judge thought it appropriate to ask the chief justice to allow the man a chair as it was not a court proceeding but an administrative meeting convened to watch on a projector screen the leaked video of Malik Riaz. (The Pemra chairman has since suffered a heart attack; I restrain myself from speculating on correlation, although it would be good speculation). The parallel video image summoned to mind is that of my Lord, the chief justice resisting with genuine bravado while being bullied by Musharraf and his cronies to resign and that of My Lord being pushed and shoved by contemptuous and contemptible foot soldiers of Musharraf. The moral texture of both images has unavoidable similarities. I was repelled then and I don’t like it now.

My Lords probably are driven by the best of motivations and believe them to be the saviours who would rid us from the corrupt, incompetent government. Firstly, My Lords are not vested with the power to do so. Secondly and more significantly, we appreciate the concern but no, thanks anyways. We will be glad if we are allowed to exercise our right of making our own mistakes. My Lords have seen Musharraf and his arrogance up close and personal and it is with utmost deference I quote Habib Jalib “Jo shakhs tum se pehle yahan takht nasheen tha/ Usko bhi Khuda hone pe itna hi yaqeen tha” (“The person occupying the throne before you was equally convinced of his divinity”).

Published In The Express Tribune, June 24th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>For the good of democracy</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/397766/for-the-good-of-democracy</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/397766/for-the-good-of-democracy#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 12 19:35:33 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[farrukh.khan.pitafi]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=397766</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Change may come in any shape, but if it comes through any means other than fresh elections, it will be detrimental.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[“Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means government by the badly educated.” — Gilbert K Chesterton

At a juncture when the propinquity of a truly democratic order was almost being taken for granted, Pakistan suffered the biggest disaster since the hanging of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. A three-member bench headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, who has vowed to protect democracy, sacked a democratically-elected prime minister on a matter of constitutional interpretation.

The sacked man, Yousaf Raza Gilani, and his party accepted the ruling with grace and nominated another candidate. But the day the prime ministerial nominee, Makhdum Shahabuddin, was to file his nomination papers, an anti-narcotics court issued a non-bailable warrant for his arrest, on a case that had been pending for weeks. Imagine, a court waking up on that precise day. The powers that be in the Islamic republic do not seem to care much for democracy. I have previously expressed hope in the growth of democracy and the institution building process. With the prime minister removed through an undemocratic, albeit legal method, that optimism cannot be sustained. It is clear that this is not the case of institutions clashing over boundaries, but disputes concerning other matters. Of course, the ruling party, too, is responsible for this sorry tale.

In Islamabad’s drawing rooms, it is being speculated that a government of technocrats backed by the army will soon be installed through a soft coup. Those who make these claims, carry a list of candidates for each ministry. Another theory is that the judiciary-executive tussle will result in the announcement of early elections and when the assemblies are dismissed, names in the aforementioned list will be adjusted in the caretaker cabinet, which in time, will be granted two to three years of extension. As the sacking of a prime minister and embarrassing an elected government by asking it to write a letter against its own head of state can be considered akin to protecting democracy, there is little doubt that this would also strengthen democracy.

Change may come in any shape, but if it comes through any means other than fresh elections, it will be detrimental. And change will definitely come. But let us fix responsibility for any undemocratic development. It should be remembered that the current democratic dispensation was founded on an intricate masonry of checks and balances. One function of the independent judiciary was to protect democracy. While it might have protected it from a military takeover, it has not been able to protect it from its own wrath. You can foresee the entire system collapsing. Some would say that the protectors of the Constitution have plunged the nation into another crisis-ridden bog.

If any undemocratic change comes, our armchair theoreticians assure us, it will not be limited to the cabinet and parliament alone, but will affect the judiciary as well. Perhaps, our judicial custodians have forgotten that they are part of the very democratic order that their recent verdicts seem to have so negatively impacted.

Published In The Express Tribune, June 23rd, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>PM’s disqualification: ‘Pakistan’s top court has overstepped its bounds’</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/397528/pm%e2%80%99s-disqualification-%e2%80%98pakistan%e2%80%99s-top-court-has-overstepped-its-bounds%e2%80%99</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/397528/pm%e2%80%99s-disqualification-%e2%80%98pakistan%e2%80%99s-top-court-has-overstepped-its-bounds%e2%80%99#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 12 04:23:41 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[news.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category><category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=397528</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Chairman of Press Council of India – has claimed Pakistani SC, chief justice, been showing utter lack of restraint.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Former judge of the Indian Supreme Court Justice Markandey Katju has taken a dim view of the apex court ruling that disqualified Yousaf Raza Gilani from the premiership— asserting that a prime minister did not need a trust vote from the Supreme Court.


In an opinion piece written for The Hindu, Justice Katju – who is currently the chairman of the Press Council of India – has claimed that the “Pakistani Supreme Court, particularly its chief justice, has been showing utter lack of restraint. This is not expected of superior courts.” Substantiating his stance against the Pakistan’s highest court, he held that the language of the Pakistani Constitution with regards to this specific provision was clear.

He cited Section 248(2) of the Pakistani Constitution which states: “No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the president or governor in any court during his term of office.”

He said according to the “principle in British constitutional law, almost every constitution in the world has incorporated a provision giving total immunity to presidents and governors from criminal prosecution”. He said this principle was central for the efficient working of a system. “I fail to understand how proceedings on corruption charges  can be instituted against the Pakistani president.”

“It seems to me that the Pakistani Supreme Court has lost its balance and gone berserk. If it does not now come to its senses I am afraid the day is not far off when the Constitution will collapse, and the blame will squarely lie with the court, and particularly its chief justice.”

Published In The Express Tribune, June 22nd, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>A terrible responsibility</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/397130/a-terrible-responsibility</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/397130/a-terrible-responsibility#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 12 17:23:07 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[amber.darr]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=397130</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The public is likely to demand a delicate balance between activism and restraint by the judiciary.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Unfashionable as it may be to confess, I was not immediately moved when in March 2007, General (retd) Pervez Musharraf, unceremoniously and unconstitutionally suspended Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. My inability at that time to immediately respond to the call for the independence of judiciary was not because I was a Musharraf sympathiser, but because I was not entirely convinced that the judiciary that had supported and guided Musharraf to power in the first place was truly independent and had the right to claim my support.

I had found it difficult to ignore in those days, that when in 1999, Musharraf had ousted the democratically elected government of Mian Nawaz Sharif, most of these judges (the CJP being one of them), had not only endorsed and legitimised the move —by continuing in office, indeed taking oath on the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) and by a giving full bench judgment in support of Musharraf in the case of Zafar Ali Shah vs Pervez Musharraf 2000 SCMR 1137 — but had also, and far more damningly, invoked the doctrine of necessity to grant him the power, albeit limited, to amend the Constitution.

Of course, like everyone else in Pakistan, the judiciary, too, had justifications: in their judgment in the Zafar Ali Shah case, they claimed that they had taken the oath on the PCO merely to ‘uphold’ the judicial organ of the state and had supported the army chief because he was the holder of a Constitutional post and could not be summarily removed, even by a prime minister. Not many were fooled: it was commonly believed, even by those who benefited from the compromise, that the judiciary had preferred expediency over the rule of law and in doing so had driven yet another nail in the coffin of Pakistan’s constitutional principles.

Expediency, however, did not seem to be an option, when seven years later, the same Musharraf who had cried high treason when he was removed from office without due process, removed the CJP, also holder of a constitutional office, in exactly the same manner. Instead of accepting the decision against him and fading into a quiet retirement, as may have been pragmatic to do, the CJP chose to take a stand, not for his personal glory but for the sanctity of his office. The judiciary, and indeed the entire legal community, seemed only to have been waiting for a leader. They rallied around the CJP and did not rest until he was finally restored to office, believing somewhat naively perhaps, that they were ushering in a new era of the supremacy, indeed glory, of justice.

Although this naive belief was challenged many a time in the last three years, when questions were raised about the wisdom of judicial activism, the judiciary’s preference for taking up high profile political cases and of nurturing the media as an important pillar of state, the events of the last few weeks, seem to absolve the judiciary, at least in the eyes of legal purists. As Mr Gilani’s conviction, Arsalan and Malik Riaz’s scandal and Mr Gilani’s ultimate disqualification unfolded in quick succession, the judiciary, eschewing all exits to the doubtful road to practicality, followed instead the inherent logic of the law, and brought the legal proceedings before them, to their natural conclusion.

Legally sound, independent and brave as these decisions may be, this places a terrible responsibility not only on the CJP but also on the entire judiciary. From this moment onwards all actions of the judiciary will come under an even closer scrutiny. The conduct of judges, both public and private, as well as their judgments are likely to be examined minutely. The public, fuelled by the discontent of certain political parties, is likely to demand the same delicate balance between activism and restraint, the same commitment to due process, and the same across the board accountability that the judiciary appears to have meted out to others. It is in achieving this fine equilibrium and maintaining it consistently, that the judiciary will not only earn and uphold the respect it deserves, but also play its true role in the impartial progress of our society.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 22nd, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Profile: Shahabuddin’s journey</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/396890/profile-shahabuddin%e2%80%99s-journey</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/396890/profile-shahabuddin%e2%80%99s-journey#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 12 00:52:04 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Kashif Zafar]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=396890</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[His portfolios include the treasury, planning and development, health and textiles.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Despite his background as a student of law, Makhdoom Shahabuddin has made a name for himself primarily as a politician and agriculturalist – his portfolios at various times throughout his career include the treasury, planning and development, health and textiles.


He hails from Mianwali Qureshian, an important political centre in Rahim Yar Khan and is known to be more interested in finding jobs for the unemployed rather than the development of the region – he is responsible for the employment of hundreds during the time Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) has remained in power.

He is the Sajjada Nasheen of the Darga Sharif Makhdoom Hameeduddin Hakim in the Meo Mubarak village.

Shahabuddin matriculated from Sadiq Public School Bahawalpur, spending his first intermediate year at Government College Rahim Yar Khan before migrating to FC College Lahore. His close ties to Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi are on account of their time spent studying with him in FC College. After his graduation, Shahabuddin studied law at Punjab Law College Lahore.

While Shahabuddin’s political career started with the Pakistan Muslim League (PML), he largely witnessed success as part of PPP.

He contested his first election from NA 148 in 1988 with the PML ticket, losing to his uncle contesting the constituency with a PPP ticket. Contesting the same constituency in 1990 with the PPP ticket, Shahabuddin defeated his cousin and was elected as a member of the National Assembly. In 1993, he won the constituency’s seat again, defeating his uncle Makhdoom Ruknuddin, and served as the treasury minister in Benazir Bhutto’s government subsequently. Shahabuddin was elected as the chairman of the Southern Peoples Party, when President Asif Ali Zardari, as acting PPP chairman, established a separate chapter for southern Punjab. He is also part of PPP’s central executive committee.

Before Yousaf Raza Gilani’s disqualification as premier, Shahabuddin was part of his Cabinet as textiles minister.

Published In The Express Tribune, June 21st, 2012. 

_____________________________________________

[poll id="791"]]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Gilani’s replacement: PPP picks Makhdoom Shahabuddin for top slot</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/396891/gilani%e2%80%99s-replacement-ppp-picks-makhdoom-shahabuddin-for-top-slot</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/396891/gilani%e2%80%99s-replacement-ppp-picks-makhdoom-shahabuddin-for-top-slot#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 12 00:13:43 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[zia.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=396891</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[In late-night move, Zardari also nominates Raja Pervaiz Ashraf as covering candidate.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The nominations are out, and the leading party seems poised for a showdown with the judiciary.


Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) co-Chairman Asif Ali Zardari nominated late Wednesday night former health and textile minister Makhdoom Shahabuddin as the candidate for the new prime minister and former water and power minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf as the covering candidate.

Both candidates have had friction with the apex court recently.

Ashraf, who faces serious corruption allegations, was among those against whom the chief justice had ordered legal proceedings in the rental power plants case. Shahabuddin, meanwhile, was alleged to have approved the unauthorised drug quotas that led to the ephedrine scandal involving former premier’s son Ali Musa Gilani.

According to APP, however, Shahabuddin took up the ephedrine quota case himself in the National Assembly much before it reared its head.

“I have directed the Secretary Ministry of Health to constitute a joint investigation team of two credible and competent officers ... the team will submit a report of the two firms which were given illegal quota of ephedrine,” APP quoted Shahabuddin as telling lawmakers on the floor of the house on February 4, 2011.

Election process

Shahabuddin will file his nomination papers before the 2pm deadline on Thursday (today).

The speaker will scrutinise the nominations in the presence of the candidates, their proposers and seconders within an hour after the nominations are filed to her office.

Voting for the new prime minister will take place at 5:30 pm on Friday.

Under the Constitution, only a Muslim member of the National Assembly can contest for the office of prime minister, and has to be elected by a majority of the 342-member lower house of parliament, which comes to 172 votes. The PPP-led coalition enjoys a comfortable majority to secure the votes for its candidate to get elected.

Defiant Zardari

Earlier in the day, a defiant but poised President Zardari told lawmakers from his party that he would see the party through what he termed was a fresh wave of conspiracy.

“Don’t worry. I know very well how to deal with these challenges. Have trust in me and I will lead you out of the crisis,” President Zardari is said to have told a meeting of the PPP parliamentary party.

The huddle of PPP lawmakers from the National Assembly, however, did not discuss any name for the top slot – even though it was reported that the meeting was called for this purpose. However, the president took the opportunity to galvanise his party.

PPP officials said the parliamentary party had empowered the president to pick the candidate of his choice and assured him their complete support.

“Whosoever you select, appoint, or nominate for the position, we will support your choice,” a senior member said, with other lawmakers raising their hands to endorse his suggestion.

Responding to lawmakers’ expression of trust on him, President Zardari promised them he would choose a person best suited to the country and to the party. “I will choose the best amongst us … I will never let you down,” a legislator quoted the president as saying.

The meeting, at President Zardari’s official residence, lasted for almost three hours. During the gathering, the president and several senior members of PPP, showered generous praise on Gilani for his ‘relentless’ services and ‘unmatched’ sacrifices for the party.

“He is close to our hearts,” Zardari said while talking about Gilani. The president then held the former premier’s arm and said: “You are our lifetime prime minister.”

Frontrunners

Shahabuddin beat water and power minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar and religious affairs minister Syed Khursheed Shah to secure the nomination for the top slot.

Sources say Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid, PPP’s allied party, had reservations over Mukhtar’s appointment. However, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, after a party meeting on Wednesday, told journalists that they had no reservations over Mukhtar’s name.

Meanwhile, Hina Rabbani Khar was also said to have entered the fray, given that she, too, is from southern Punjab.

Published In The Express Tribune, June 21st, 2012. ]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Zardari for Makhdoom Shahabuddin as prime ministerial candidate</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/396830/next-general-elections-early-next-year-zardari</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/396830/next-general-elections-early-next-year-zardari#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 12 18:29:14 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[ppi]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=396830</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[PPP leader Raja Pervez Ashraf to file nomination papers as covering candidate.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Former Federal Textile Minister Makhdoom Shahabuddin’s name has been finalised by President Asif Ali Zardari as the Prime Ministerial nominee, Express News reported early Thursday morning.

Senior Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) leader Raja Pervez Ashraf will file his nomination papers as a covering candidate.

Both will submit their nomination papers on Thursday.

According to Express News, Zardari disclosed Shahabuddin’s name during a meeting with a delegation of parliamentarians from Fata led by Hameedullah Jan Afridi. The President asked the delegation for their support in favour of Shahabuddin during the elections on Friday.

The president finalised the former textile minister's name after unanimous consensus was reached among coalition partners and PPP Parliamentary members. They had earlier reposed full confidence in the president for deciding on candidates for the new prime minister.

Some of the other names believed to have come under consideration were that of senior PPP leader and former Water and Power Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar and former Religious Affairs Minister Khursheed Shah.

PML-N to field candidate?

Meanwhile, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) has also decided to back Sardar Mehtab Abbasi, provided their coalition parties also decide to throw their weight behind the PML-N candidate.

New Deputy Prime Minister post? 

Earlier in the evening on Wednesday, the PPP Parliamentary Party members meeting at the presidential palace had also discussed the creation of a post of Deputy Prime Minister. Since the Constitution has no provision for such a post, a presidential ordinance would be required for its creation. Though an approval from the Parliament will be sought, Express News reported late Wednesday night.

Rumors are rife that senior Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) leader Chaudhry Pervez Elahi is being considered for the post and has been asked to rush back from London, where he has been receiving medical treatment.
Sources say that the need for the post arose in light of the fact that any new elected prime minister might face the same fate as Gilani. In the absence of an incumbent, the Deputy Prime Minister would be required to ensure that state of affairs continue without disruptions.
It is expected that the new premier will be directed by the Supreme Court to write a letter to the Swiss government, asking them to re-open the graft case against President Zardari.

'Election early next year'

In the meeting President Zardari had said that it has accepted the Supreme Court’s decision to disqualify the Prime Minister and said that general elections will be held early next year.

Addressing the meeting he had said the ruling party did not want confrontation among state institutions and will continue to work for strengthening democracy in the country.

Zardari said decision to nominate new Leader of the House in National Assembly will be taken in larger national interest and in consultation with the coalition partners.

President said the PPP accepted judgment of the Supreme Court despite its reservations and for the sake of democracy. He said next general elections will be held after eight months.

Parliamentary Party members reposed full confidence in leadership of President Zardari and authorised him to nominate new Leader of the House.

Former Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, who also attended the meeting said he worked according to the Constitution and the law. "I would continue to serve the masses and the country to the best of my capacity. I remained loyal to the party."

Gilani had been disqualified as prime minister by the Supreme Court while hearing an appeal against the Speaker National Assembly ruling that the former prime minister's membership of the house was not void following conviction, and summary sentencing for contempt of court. Gilani was adjudged to have committed contempt by disregarding SC orders to write letters to the Swiss courts to reopen cases closed under the national reconciliation ordinance (NRO).]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>What next?</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/396483/what-next</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/396483/what-next#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 12 18:16:04 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[editorial]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Editorial]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=396483</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The new state of instability that has been created, post removal of Yousaf Raza Gilani, will not help us at all.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Supreme Court’s sudden bolt from the blue in disqualifying the prime minister opens up a whole litany of legal and ethical questions. These will be debated in only a few circles. For most people, the removal of Yousaf Raza Gilani means a further state of flux and a renewed condition of uncertainty. Those who are celebrating this turn of events should tell us exactly what they are happy about. How does this crisis and the confusion between institutional roles that it has plunged us into, help the country or its people in any way.

Will electricity run down power lines again just because Gilani is gone? Will the matter of the letter to the Swiss authorities be solved or simply land on the table of the next PM? Will law and order and the situation in Balochistan suddenly improve? The answers to all these questions are not very difficult to answer. What we have is an abiding state of uncertainty, which will in fact act only to weaken us further as a nation. It establishes the point that elected prime ministers can be thrown out at whim. It also means that there is less and less hope of any kind of recovery from a multifaceted crisis, created by poor governance, foreign policy woes and a collapsing economy.

The removal of Mr Gilani solves nothing at all and creates newer problems. This is especially true as new elections are now, at most, less than a year away. There is speculation that they could be held even sooner. In such a scenario, what we needed most of all was to establish principles for the future to avoid any kind of clash between institutions. The new state of instability that has been created will not help us at all. In fact, it takes us further away from the goal of establishing a vibrant democracy and entrenching civilian rule by creating doubts in the minds of people about whether this is possible at all in a country where the experience with democracy has been a faltering one.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 21st, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>A dark omen for us all</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/396485/a-dark-omen-for-us-all</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/396485/a-dark-omen-for-us-all#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 12 17:59:59 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[ahmad.rafay.alam]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=396485</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Gilani's removal, while legally justified, will disrupt many of the policies his government was trying to implement.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Back in the Eighth Amendment days of yore, the Supreme Court of Pakistan was often called upon to determine whether a president or governor’s dismissal of the national or provincial assembly was constitutional. The Court didn’t swing the axe itself; it merely decided whether the blow was justified.

With June 19’s Supreme Court ruling that Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani ceased to hold office from April 26 on account of his conviction for contempt of court, the Court has, for the first time, dismissed a government.

I don’t know Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani. I have heard many stories about him and his family. But I don’t put stock in such stories, mostly because one can hardly trust what they read or hear nowadays. I do know him as the democratically-elected prime minister of Pakistan responsible for overseeing — some would say badly — the huge and impossibly complex job of governing this country. I also know that his removal, while legally justified, will disrupt many of the policies — whether I agree with them or not — his government was attempting to implement.

From an administrative standpoint, his removal means a change in momentum in the implementation of policy. It means uncertainty. Uncertainty is a cancer for any administration. These are entities that demand focus and direction, else the wheels spin but no one gets anywhere. On the other hand, there is the possibility that a new government may bring the focus and attention that our administration demands. Stranger things have been known to happen.

There are many reasons to dismiss an elected representative. But they must be good, as the will of the people is not something to be taken lightly. A representative may be corrupt, in which case they have lost the moral authority to represent their constituency. A prime minister may be removed on a vote of no confidence, which means he has lost the ability to govern parliament.

In the present case, the prime minister has been removed because — as some see it — he has refused to comply with the Supreme Court’s direction to write a letter that may initiate criminal proceedings against the sitting president. Some argue that a convicted person cannot be prime minister.

Some of the petitions and applications upon which the Supreme Court made its decision were filed after the prime minister’s conviction. They were ably argued by, amongst others, AK Dogar and Mohammad Azhar Siddique (who brought CP 40 of 2012 titled Mohammad Azhar Siddique vs Federation of Pakistan in his own name). Some will recall AK Dogar as the advocate who represents Hafiz Saeed before the Lahore High Court. And who can forget Azhar Siddique, the lawyer behind the petition seeking a ban on Facebook and founder of the alternative social media website Millat Facebook.

I congratulate all counsel for the swiftness with which they were able to obtain disposal of their petitions for their clients. By way of contrast, I know of a litigant before the Supreme Court who is claiming compensation for the state’s acquisition of his family’s property in 1948 and for which litigation commenced in 1988. To date, he has not received his compensation. Our Constitution directs that no person be deprived of their property without compensation. Mr Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in his address to the Constituent Assembly in 1947, said that the first duty of the State was to protect the life and property of its citizens.

But by far the most troubling activity in the Court this past week was the brouhaha that sparked up between the attorney general of Pakistan and senior lawyers when the latter employed what can best be described as an ultra vires hand gesture during arguments. Such scenes have hitherto been the domain of the district courts and evening news reporting. Nevertheless, it is often said that violence begins when sane men lose their ability to reason. The fact that reason is lost on the courtroom floor is a dark omen for us all.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 21st, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Judicial coup: flashback India, 1975</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/396488/judicial-coup-flashback-india-1975</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/396488/judicial-coup-flashback-india-1975#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 12 17:33:30 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[avirook.sen]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=396488</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[On June 12, 1975, Allahabad High Court convicted former PM Indira Gandhi in a case of election malpractices.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[On June 12, 1975, the Allahabad High Court convicted former prime minister Indira Gandhi in a case of election malpractices. The conviction disqualified her as a member of parliament, but left room for appeal. However, Mrs Gandhi chose not to take that route. In a matter of weeks, the Constitution was suspended and India was in the midst of the Emergency. Opposition leaders were jailed; press freedoms vanished; and, as everyone remembers fondly, the trains ran on time. Mrs Gandhi and her son Sanjay, now ruled unfettered.

The judgment given by the Pakistan Supreme Court on June 19, might have had a similar effect on life in Pakistan, but for a key difference. It did not directly remove the actual centre of executive power, but rather a dispensable and replaceable, functionary. The real target of Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s crusade against corruption is President Asif Ali Zardari, whom he would like to embarrass out of office. But this is a difficult task.

Some headlines called the judgment a ‘judicial coup’. Others saw it as proof that the Pakistani judiciary was genuinely independent. I am uncomfortable with both descriptions. I cannot miss the irony that the band of campaigners against corruption includes Nawaz Sharif. Or the fact that the judge’s son stands accused of taking bribes.

The complexity of life in Pakistan makes the idea of ‘independent’ institutions a romantic one. Looking in from the outside, there seems to be a bizarre Mad magazine ‘Spy vs Spy’ aspect to relationships between people representing different pillars of the state. Take Justice Chaudhry’s career. He was appointed advocate general of Balochistan in 1989, by then chief minister Akbar Bugti, and rose meteorically through the system in that province till he was nominated to the Supreme Court.

He was on a bench that validated Pervez Musharraf’s coup and became Pakistan’s youngest chief justice in June 2005. In August the same year, Akbar Bugti was killed in a military operation. An event President Musharraf called a victory for Pakistan.

When it was time for Musharraf to bully the system into perpetuating his grip on Pakistan, Chaudhry Iftikhar stood in the way and became a hero for the masses upon his suspension and arrest. The prime minster he removed from office on June 19 was also the man who released him in 2008. The president who delayed his reinstatement remains in office, but must deal with losing a key aide.

Yousaf Raza Gilani’s ouster tries to send the message that no one is above the law in Pakistan, but it would be naive to think that this is actually the case. And let us not forget that Gilani has been convicted for contempt, not corruption. However, the judgement does come at a time when there is increasing frustration with a government that is seen as weak and avaricious.

In India, circa 1975, there was a similar mood of disenchantment, not the least because of the centralisation of power in the hands of Mrs Gandhi and her son. There was a prevailing sense that India was effectively a monarchy, which wasn’t helped by Mrs Gandhi’s grim views on democracy (it threw up ‘mediocre’ people).

Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha, who pronounced the conviction that unwittingly sentenced India to the Emergency, did not achieve a fraction of the cult status Justice Chaudhry has. But he, too, was keen on sending the message that no one was above the law. Mrs Gandhi was found guilty on fairly minor charges, one of them being that at rallies she spoke from a dais that was built too high.

Sinha passed away in 2008. A fellow judge told an obituary writer: “Justice Sinha asked the registrar to take all steps to maintain the sanctity and dignity of the court in spite of the presence of the prime minister. So, while it was ensured that Indira Gandhi had an appropriate seat, it was lower than the judge’s dais. However, her chair was a little higher than the seats of the lawyers.

“It was also strictly ensured that no lawyer or official inside the court would stand up when she arrived; that honour was rightfully reserved only for the judge who would arrive a little later…”.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 21st, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Hubris falls</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/396613/hubris-falls</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/396613/hubris-falls#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 12 17:23:52 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[nadir.hassan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=396613</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Even if we grant all players involved benefit of doubt — they have all deeply damaged country for self-aggrandisement.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Let’s be charitable and assume that the various players in the news have intentions as pure and innocent as a Shahid Afridi slog for six. Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and the Supreme Court were so truly determined to safeguard their institution’s oft-abused integrity, that they reluctantly had to order the removal of an elected civilian prime minister from power. The departed Yousaf Raza Gilani’s only loyalty was to the Constitution and to the immunity it granted the president — a commitment so deep that he was willing to defy a judicial order and lose his post in a doomed attempt to protect the rule of law.

Even if we grant all players involved the benefit of the doubt — which they certainly don’t deserve — there is no escaping the fact that they have all deeply damaged the country and done so for no reason other than their own self-aggrandisement. And they all seem to suffer from the one fatal flaw that is the greatest curse on humanity: a surplus of hubris.

Critics of the Supreme Court who, by random happenstance I’m sure, also happen to be supporters of the PPP, have accused Chief Justice Chaudhry and the other justices of essentially being a ‘B team’ of the army and carrying out its agenda under the guise of constitutionalism. It is a uniquely Pakistani trait to see a conspiracy beneath every opaque surface but it still takes a lot of gall to call the men who were chiefly responsible for bringing down a military dictator and who are now investigating unlawful kidnappings by the intelligence agencies, stooges of the military.

A better theory may simply be that the Supreme Court has given full expression to its opinion about itself. Cast as heroes and saviours, judges of the apex Court began believing the rhetoric and decided that only they could save the country. This meant putting aside legal niceties, such as jurisdiction, and ending up dismissing a prime minister who dared challenge their authority. The Supreme Court seems not to have a problem with the concept of civilian rule itself; by its own past record, its seems that civilian leaders have often been harshly dealt with by the Court.

This doesn’t mean that the actions of the prime minister were justified in any way. Whatever motivation the Supreme Court judges may have had, this did not give Gilani the authority to repeatedly ignore their orders. A democratic system cannot function if the executive picks and chooses which judicial edicts it feels like following. In defending his refusal to write a letter to the Swiss authorities, Gilani ended up equating himself and his party, already comfortable in the martyr pose, to democracy itself. To make that claim with any degree of seriousness requires staggering arrogance.

At no point did Gilani acknowledge that there is more to democracy than winning an election. It may now have become fashionable to refer to the judges as unelected tyrants in robes but there is a reason why the Supreme Court’s actions are not decided by referenda. One of democracy’s greatest enemies is the person who decides to do what he wants because he has the mandate of the people. The judges are meant to keep a check on that and thus cannot be ruled by popular passions.

This year-long drama was entirely avoidable. All it needed was for one of the many casts of characters — be it the chief justice, the prime minister or the president — to stand up and admit that democracy was more important than his own personal fate. None was willing to do so because they were all so intoxicated by the sweet nectar of their considerable sense of self-importance.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 21st, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Down … but this time out</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/396482/down-%e2%80%a6-but-this-time-out</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/396482/down-%e2%80%a6-but-this-time-out#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 12 17:07:48 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[anwer.mooraj]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=396482</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The fault of the worst PM in the history of Pakistan was that he was terminally hampered by his sense of loyalty.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[It’s finally happened. The worst prime minister in the history of Pakistan has been turfed out. A vaulting ambition and compromised morality has finally been nipped in the bud. Yousaf Raza Gilani will finally stumble off like the Flying Dutchman. There are a lot of long faces and unfathomable gloom in the PPP camp. But then, as the great Roman orator Cicero would have put it … Volucres pinnam confluent. Birds of the same feather flock together. In saner quarters, there is a certain amount of … not jubilation, but relief. This might not be a crenellated epic. That’s probably why press coverage in the papers has not been stoked by self-righteous pleasure or indulgent joyous malevolence. The situation has been treated as a demonstration of the truism that people who don’t play by the rules will eventually be punished by the rules.

The thinking man has watched with considerable disbelief as the edifice of defiance was slowly built up, brick by brick, like the great Temple of the Moon at Teotihuacan, with finishing touches provided by the speaker of the national assembly. Each time the prime minister cocked a snook at the apex Court, he returned in triumph like General Emiliano Zapata Salazar of Morelos, beaming and garlanded. His great attribute was that he always contrived to suggest a life of unruffled serenity. His fault was that he was terminally hampered by his profound sense of loyalty. It wasn’t a case of Perfidious Albion. My country right or wrong. It was a case of my Leader right or wrong. The big question that the thinking man is now asking is, how long is the leader going to survive?

The champions of peoples’ rule are probably disappointed that an elected government was not allowed to complete its term and are spewing out the usual clichés about democracy being in danger. But if the party has succeeded in anything, it is in conveying the impression that the leaders are selfish and think only of themselves and not the country. The ‘great achievements’ that the PPP has trumpeted at regular intervals, with excoriating provincial primness were, in actual fact, designed to achieve popularity in certain sections of the country and not to help the people at large. Besides, the PPP has done precious little in trying to change the country’s unfortunate image abroad.

Their Lordships have instructed the president to continue the parliamentary system and to find a replacement for the disqualified prime minister. Imran Khan has stated with characteristic aplomb that the judgment has marked the supremacy of law. Mushahid Hussain, who was once Nawaz Sharif’s right hand man and deserted him to join the opportunists in the turncoat party established by Pervez Musharraf, is purported to have made this astonishing statement: “Gilani’s era was historic for the various achievements made during his tenure”! The only realistic comment appears to have been made by the Amir of the Jamaat-e-Islami, Syed Munawar Hasan, who said that the president should order fresh elections and put an interim government in its place. It must have occurred to him that there was no point in continuing with another yahoo destined for a half life in the outreaches of a government that has been besmirched by dishonour. Nobody in his right mind is expecting any tsunamis of change even if they are accompanied by the whip. But let’s hope that the election provides us with somebody who can clean the Aegean Stables and who has an O level in economics.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 21st, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Who will be the next prime minister?</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/396454/who-will-be-the-next-prime-minister</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/396454/who-will-be-the-next-prime-minister#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 12 11:31:42 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=396454</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[National Assembly session called on June 20. Ahmed Mukhtar, Khursheed Shah, Mehtab Abbsai among possible candidates.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Talk of who will be the next prime minister of Pakistan has spread like wildfire ever since Yousaf Raza Gilani was disqualified from the post by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) had called a core committee meeting as soon as the court verdict was announced and decided to consult all coalition parties before setting an agenda.

President Asif Ali Zardari has summoned a session of the National Assembly at 5:30pm on June 22 (Friday). The new prime minister is expected to be elected during the session.

“The leader of the house (prime minister) will be elected in the new session of the national assembly,” Qamar Zaman Kaira told AFP.

Gilani’s lawyer and PPP member Aitzaz Ahsan said the new prime minister would be “a nice person and loyal to the party”.

The session of the PPP parliamentary committee held on Wednesday handed over the authority to the president to select the new premier. No particular name for the post emerged during the meeting, however, Zardari said that no matter who the new premier is, he will not let a 'trial be done of Benazir Bhutto's grave'.

As the meeting of the PPP and the coalition parties continued, many names for the post had emerged.

Ahmed Mukhtar

Ahmed Mukhtar, who was holding the power and water ministry before the cabinet was dissolved, is a strong candidate for the post of the prime minister.

Talking to the media on Tuesday, Mukhtar said that he had heard he was being made the prime minister.

Mukhtar was a strong candidate for the premiership after the PPP won the general election back in 2008, but could not make it to the top slot. Hailing from Gujrat district of central Punjab, Mukhtar is considered to be an arch-rival of the leadership of Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) — the largest of PPP’s allied group. He won against PML-Q chief Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain in 2008 in one of the most closely-fought contests.

Khursheed Shah

Religious Affairs Minister Khursheed Shah, a PPP diehard from its stronghold of Sindh, was also in the limelight for the top slot — with some officials claiming that he was being backed by a majority of the party. But the problem with Shah’s selection is that the PPP can not afford to give all the important slots to the same province.

Sardar Mehtab Abbasi

Express News reported on Wednesday that Pakistan Muslim League - Nawaz (PML-N) has decided to put forward Sardar Mehtab Abbasi's name after consulting with the coalition parties.

The PML-N, which has been protesting against the ruling government, had earlier announced that it will not nominate any candidate for the post.

Makhdum Shahabuddin

Makhdum Shahabuddin, a PPP leader from southern Punjab, is also among the strongest candidates.

An insider had told The Express Tribune that Shahabuddin’s name had been finalised and none of the government allied groups raised any objections to it.

Correction: An earlier version of this article had incorrectly mentioned the date for Friday as June 20. The correction has been made.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item>	</channel>
                </rss>
