LAHORE: The Constitution of Pakistan clearly states that the military is to be subservient to the elected government and that its constitutional mandate is to guard the country’s physical boundaries and to act as directed by the executive organ of the state. Nobody can deny that in 1958, 1977 and 1999 the military showed no respect for the Constitution. General Ziaul Haq publicly said that it was a mere piece of paper. It is also a fact that in the past our superior judiciary has supported military dictators.
One of the sitting judges of the Supreme Court publicly said that the prime minister was “dishonest” because he had been dishonest to his oath. Surely, the irony in this shouldn’t be lost since in the past many superior court judges have violated their own oaths and taken a new one under the so-called Provisional Constitutional Order. Who was it that legitimised military rule by coming up with the ‘Doctrine of Necessity’. Wasn’t that merely a justification for legitimising and illegal military rule?
Also, there is the matter of immunity. Why is the Honourable Court asking that the president should approach the courts if he wants to claim immunity? Isn’t the Constitution quite clear about this? Specifically, Article 248(2) says that no criminal proceeding can be instituted or continued against the president or governor in any court during their term in office. Why aren’t our national institutions respecting the boundaries set for them by the Constitution?
ST Hussain
Published in The Express Tribune, January 14th, 2012.
