The Supreme Court proceedings ended on January 19 with a clear message to all those who had been worried about any dramatic consequences following the Supreme Court’s January 16 order instructing the prime minister to appear in person and explain why he should not be charged with contempt of court. The message was that neither side will make rash or populist moves, and that a genuine judicial process, operating within constitutional parameters, is at work in which the government will plead its case primarily on legal grounds. Starting from February 1, the coming hearings will focus on the implementation of the NRO judgment and the question of presidential immunity, while the issue of charging the prime minister with contempt of court may become secondary.
The prime minister, who walked in with Aitzaz Ahsan as his lawyer, has signalled to the Supreme Court that from now on the government will not be evasive or confrontationist in dealing with the apex court or its orders.
Meanwhile, in pleading his innocence before the Court the prime minister himself made four important points. One, that the PPP remains committed to upholding the Constitution and acknowledges its supremacy. Two, by recalling the personal appearances in the Court of successive PPP leaders and their past adherence to Court orders, he argued that the PPP’s respect for the judiciary is an established fact. Three, that the president of Pakistan enjoys, within Pakistan, immunity under Article 248, and that outside he enjoys immunity under the Vienna Convention. Finally, the prime minister said that the entire parliament supported the immunity of the president since in the 18th Amendment, in which many articles were amended, there was an all-party consensus to not change that clause.
The prime minister’s submission and presence prompted Justice Asif Khosa to observe that this was a great day for the rule of law in the history of Pakistan “irrespective of the outcome of the case”. That said, the prime minister’s lawyer will have to explain to the Court why the latter should change its view that the government has been dragging its feet on the implementation of the NRO judgment.
On this matter, Aitzaz Ahsan has already responded by saying that he will submit a detailed response to what orders were passed and how the government responded. The public perception also is that, leaving aside the letter to the Swiss authorities, the government has not fully implemented the Court’s NRO judgment. The prime minister has been exempted from further appearances while Aitzaz Ahsan will argue why his client “acted in good faith” and by not writing the letter upheld the Constitution of Pakistan, which provides immunity to the president against all criminal proceedings.
While we all await the Supreme Court hearings, there is an important and related issue on which the Honourable Chief Justice should, in his own wisdom and his commitment to upholding the dignity of the Supreme Court, pass an immediate order. All gatherings, protests or celebrations and sloganeering by lawyers must be prohibited with immediate effect. Irrespective of which political party or which judge such a gathering supports, this undermines the institutional dignity of the Supreme Court. On the day of the hearing, some lawyers were chanting slogans in favour of the PPP, and many more were raising pro-Chief Justice and anti-government slogans. Surely, the apex court is not the place for such sloganeering.
In the post-2007 Pakistan, the intrinsic authority of our institutions must be made operational. One hopes that in the coming days, the government is going to be more obedient in the implementation of the NRO judgment, barring the letter to the Swiss authorities which will be argued by the government’s lawyer.
On that note, it would be fair to say that Pakistan is slowly, but surely, moving towards constitutional rule. While the lawyers and the media must remain vigilant that due process is followed by all parties, the forum for debating or advocating that is the media and other public forums, not the Supreme Court premises.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 20th, 2012.
COMMENTS (11)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Nasim jee a layman don't care about your constituitional rule. They need basic neccessities and we have bigger problems. Please talk about realistic issues.
@MAD: Sorry to hear. At present people in PAK are intoxicated with the term Independent Judiciary, and fail to question the institution's societal obligation.
@John B:
slight problem there. anybody who even tries to take any initiative on the issue is threatened and may be put on a hitlist. Salmaan Taseer, Shahbaz Bhatti two recent examples. Many more who have preceded them. My own personal venture into this front in the form of one little comment being published led to issues with family and relatives calling to complain.
Do you think real intention is justice or is it power play? I believe this selective prosecution at this time is sheer power play.
Nasim Zehra as always balanced!!
Constitutional rule is welcome provided it is fair, equitable and available to ALL Pakistani citizens irrespective of their faith, ethnicity, political affiliation, family name, wealth, number of stars on their shoulders or judicial position.
Well The Whole "CHIEF TERAY JAANNISAR" Slogan should end now and Lawyers have done enough Politics since 2007 through Wukla Gardi
Pakistan has seen the occasional "good days" over the last 64 years - but they remain just that - days. Even these good days have a dark lining - ref. the sloganeering mentioned in the article. Let us not get carried away - all it takes is a few men with guns in uniform and that is the end of the so called democracy, independence of the judiciary, supremacy of parliament, freedom of speech, etc. We have all seen it all too often. What is waiting to happen is another set of men in another kind of uniform - beards, ankle high shalwars, guns, instant "justice", a shoora, etc......you know what I am saying.
Dear Ms Zehra
From the perspective of judicial process in Pakistan - slow and prone to tactics; and needing major reform to become speedy and capable of defeating delaying tactics by smart lawyers and clients - you have made very good arguments.
The blunt fact, however, remains that there was a large amount of money in custody of Swiss courts dealing with the NRO affected case. When NRO was in force, the then AG wrote a letter to the Swiss Court. When NRO became void, a reversal of that act was to be done needing no court decree.
Unfortunately, the Government did not withdraw that letter, which was necessary to reinstate the earlier position of Pakistan Government; leading to the possibility of Pakistan receiving the money held by the Swiss Court. This act was clearly illegal and supportive of corruption.
Then came the non-compliance of the explicit court order, and much later the contempt of court.
What do you think, the SHOs would think of contempt of court if the Prime Minister can get away with it?
Do you not realize that it is a direct blow to human rights caused by degenerating of political culture- that rewards tactics and thrives on using loopholes?
Do you think that there has been no violation of the Constitution, law and court orders?
I would like to hear it from you in one of your next articles.
Best regards
Anser Ali
The writer is absolutely right that every step in this process is a confirmation of the durablity of the Civilian government and in turn strengthening of the democratic process. The world is watching and the judicial process cannot degenerate into a kangroo court at the whims of judicial activism in support of the Establishment. In the end all this bodes well for the People of Pakistan, what was their due at the start of the journey will ultimatly be rendered to them even if it has taken six decades to get there.
The world will believe in PAK supreme courts actions are genuine post 1997, if and when the rose petal lawyers are served with contempt of court and disbarred. Until then, all credibility of the PAK courts as an institution is questionable , however good individual judges may be.