ISLAMABAD:
Resolving that it will not hand over its legitimate constitutional authority in the face of perceived arm-twisting, the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) has sought support of its coalition partners as the latest episode of the judiciary-government standoff unfolds.
President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani had a two-and-a-half-hour long meeting with leaders of coalition parties at the Presidency on Thursday night. The meeting was briefed about the ongoing situation, which has seen the judiciary once again put its foot down in the face of what it terms non-cooperation on the part of the government in high-profile corruption cases.
“The government does not want confrontation with any institution including the judiciary but the executive cannot hand over its powers to any other institution,” a participant of the meeting quoted President Zardari as telling the meeting.
A day after giving a special briefing to the Cabinet, Dr Babar Awan also briefed Thursday’s meeting of coalition parties on the current situation.
“We cannot target the judiciary. We have some compulsions, but we should not allow anyone to interfere in our domain. We need the support of our allies to nullify any attempt to destabilise the democratic government,” a leader who attended the meeting quoted the gathering as being told. However, he said everyone agreed that any confrontation at this juncture will not augur well for the country and its institutions.
To keep its coalition partners interested and on their side, the government will offer new ministries in lieu of ministries that have now been devolved to the provinces, sources said. Under the proposed formula, the new ministries will be created by merging those ministerial departments that have been left with the federation after the devolution process.
(Read: The Devolution Process)
At the moment, a number of ministers have been left without portfolios after the devolution of ministries such as health, education, labour and manpower, local government and minorities.
Chaudhry Shujaat’s Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) will be the main beneficiary of this new departmental dispensation.
“We were told that this plan will be executed soon after Ramazan,” another participant said.
Chaired by President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani the meeting was attended by Senator Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, Mian Riaz Hussain Pirzada, Senator Dr Babar Awan, Senator Afrasiab Khattak, Senator Muhammad Zahid Khan, Senator Kalsoom Perveen, Munir Khan Orakzai, MNA, Noor-ul-Haq Qadri, MNA, and Spokesperson for the President Farhatullah Babar. A press release issued after the meeting said the President briefed coalition parties on his recent visits to Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
The meeting also discussed issues relating to power and gas shortage and price hike in the country, it said, adding that the meeting also took stock of the current political and economic situation.
Judicial meeting
While the coalition parties met at the judiciary over what they perceived to be a fresh threat to the government, judges of the Supreme Court stressed that there was no confrontation.
Speaking in a short speech after a farewell dinner arranged in his honour at the Supreme Court, retiring Justice Javed Iqbal said: “We have no other motives. No one should take it wrongly. I want to negate (the impression) that there is any confrontation between state institutions… the crisis is only on TV channels and talk shows.”
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry in his speech also said that “the basic function of judges and Supreme Court is dispensation of justice without any other motive.”
The chief justice also said that an independent and impartial judiciary plays a key role in checking constitutional deviations and ensures that the law is always supreme against the exercise of arbitrary or capricious authority by any state institution or its functionary.
Whether or not there is or will be a confrontation, presidents of different bar councils across the country who attended the reception threw their support behind the courts.
In background interactions with the media office bearers of different bar associations were of the view that the apex court has been showing “unnecessary judicial restraint” so far.
SCBA condemns govt
The Supreme Court Bar Association, on its part, has expressed deep concern over the new set of grievances between the judiciary and executive taking a sinister turn, which could result in destabilising the country.
The SCBA Executive Committee held a meeting at the Supreme Court building on Thursday and unanimously passed a resolution against the government for defying the court’s orders. They warned the government that the bar is considering all options to make it heed to the SC’s orders, including reviving the lawyers’ movement, if the need arises. WITH ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY AZAM KHAN
Published in The Express Tribune, July 29th, 2011.
COMMENTS (25)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Dear Sir Time has come to decide once and for all what is the domain of Supreme court and what is the jurisdiction of executive in Pakistan. As a Law professional i can say pretty surely that executive has the authority to appoint the top bureaucrats in the country whether someone likes it or not. If some institution or individuals has an issue with an appointment or transfer made by the executive authority then proper legal course defined in the relevant rules should be followed. In the present case, the government seems to be on a right path and supreme court is getting out of its mandated jurisdiction. Since the much talked about Lawyer's movement, our judiciary has become a little over enthusiastic about executive functions. But i think , Judiciary is not responsible alone for this situation. A strong cabal including media groups, political parties, Lawyers and some civil society activists-who are inimical to PPP and democracy-are egging on the judiciary to create a change in government through judicial orders. This is a serious issue. If such a precedent is indeed created then we will have another political power centre dictating the politics and policy making in this country and that will be our higher judiciary. Pakistan does not need this at all. Let politics be played by those who are fit for it and not by honourable institutions. Judiciary needs to realise that its activism is now creating doubts in many minds as to its true intentions. Judiciary also need to seperate itself from particular parties and dubious media giants which are using its good name and prestige for their own petty interests. Let judiciary open those long pending cases which involve these very groups. Case of Asghar Khan can be cited as one example. There are other tax evasion and fraud cases waiting to be heard by supreme court. Let our respected judiciary rise above petty politics and act as a true and impartial custodian of constitution and justice. Some bureucratic postings is too petty a matter to engage in on such a high profile manner.
Mudassar Salim Peshawar
Agree with comment of @Pundit.
Why doesn't the federal govenrment just reinstate the original investigators in the Hajj and NICL scandals and get on with the probes? Certainly, if there is nothing to hide or protect, why resort to red-herring tactics by raising the separation-of-powers issue? As for the Supreme Court, it should also know its constitutional bounds. While it is eager to cleanse the government of corruption, the Supreme Court must do so according to legal procedures. Its resort to suo moto actions has been overly gratuitous. It should decide on the law IMPARTIALLY based on real (not hypothetical) cases properly brought before it. In some jurisdictions/countries, Supreme Courts have never been the trier of facts. That's the job of the lower courts. It is true that, in Pakistan, we have been given not an activist judiciary, but an activist Chief Justice, who, apparently, is less concerned with the principle of separation of powers than in putting unsavory characters out of power or, worse, in jail using the convenient blanket of the rule of law. There may be a tinge of vendetta in all this. But what happens to constitutionalism?
@Rock: You are right.
This is where they should both stop fighting for dominance and simply look at the situation realistically together to see which decisions are based in only self-interest and bias. Then, instead of attempting to demonize someone or something, concede to step back on certain aspects for the sake of the true goal. A conclusion in favor of making certain the conclusion has come from giving whatever is deemed the "bad guy" in an issue all the chance in the world to show the accusers are wrong. Not because they are wrong, but because when they can't show it due to non-bias evidence of the contrary, nobody will be able to look back and question the credibility of the prosecution because the guilt is too overwhelming to speak against and still maintain the respect of anyone who hears the speaker and even that speaker will have a hard time denying that fact. That's how you win trust. It's proof of a sincere effort on all sides for a greater good. This is separatist action under a false flag of democracy.
That can be applied to many problems in Pakistan. The "accused" and "prosecution" are just metaphors for a general idea.
Judiciary is evolving a new role for it self. Going by the actions, Chief Justice would be an amalgam of Prime Ministerial role wrapped in judicial puzzle. The role of Judiciary in alleviating the problems of general public and punishing terrorists remains extremely poor, however they are proactive when it comes to political scoring, which is of no consequence to general public. It appears to be more of tussle for power than administering justice. It by no means absolve government from its poor governance and corruption whether it’s the politicians or unbridled bureaucracy. The public money is looted and poor people have been left with no choice other than violence and suicides
This proves that Musharraf was correct in his decisions.
@perviaz memon:
My thoughts exactly :)
Is this government good for anything? Here you have a judiciary that implicitly directs them to limit their reckless plundering and the govt's response is: "what nonsense? Parliament is supreme. We can lie, cheat and steal all we want".
@Rocky said "@Pundit: It’s pak’s internal political matter avoid commenting. Just stick to foreign affairs."
Please take off all news about Pakistan out of the Internet and I shall comply with your instructions sir!
You may not be aware that www stands for world wide web!
Do not worry every body will work on same salary . It is just for media headline die out as happen in past
"Following signals from the Centre, the Gilgit-Baltistan government has decided not to relieve Inspector General Police Hussain Asghar from his present position. The Supreme Court had earlier ordered that Hussain Asghar, who was investigating the Haj scam be transferred back to his position .
The sources pointed out that orders of the Supreme Court are not applicable on Gilgit-Baltistan as it is not constitutionally part of Pakistan and under self governance order 2009, it is mandatory to consult the GB government before transfer of officers by the federal government. The sources said the federal government was adopting this tactic to keep Hussain Asghar from investigation in the Haj scam. Hussain Asghar has received instructions from the GB government to continue as Inspector General of Police in the territory."
This can happen only in Pakistan!
@ Mirza Its not the question of interpretation of law or assemblies, its matter relating corruption. The Supreme Court has every right to question the government when it comes to hinderence of justice. Why is that the government stands for those who are involved in corruption, why not justice.
Time to change the removal of judges clause and give powers to parliament, as the Supreme Judicial Council has become a cult like institution which would never take action against its own judges.
@Pundit: It's pak's internal political matter avoid commenting. Just stick to foreign affairs.
if you cut off the layer of rhetoric surrounding this. it comes to the basic equation that the politicians (not just one party - all of them) are out to swindle and make money and play politics of interest in which the interest is minting Money.
There is no opposition / Government. Its all a facade to keep the rest of the people in the illusion that they are there to serve and represent the common man. The reality is that they are there to take turns in looting our country and the people and at the same time helping their fellow crooks belonging from which ever party to escape the accountability.
Why is the government so hell bent on making sure there is no impartial investigation of the Hajj scam. They ask about rules and laws and constitution when they are facing the music. Well let us ask ourselves - do they really care about the laws or constitution when they are swindling so openly and trying every dirty trick to evade accountability
@iftikhar
you must be joking if your saying these people sacrificed to have the judiciary restored. PPP wanted Dogar! they did not EVER want an independent judiciary. They just did the drama to gain support against musharaf and MQM.
It was the long march by PTI PML N and JUI and lawyers and many other independent people who brought the judiciary back. Not PPP.
I think the PPP Govt has succeeded in diverting attention from the gigantic corruption scandals in which its leaders are neck deep ...and their effective investigation to seemingly an issue of Judiciary and executive conflict.
The so called conflict is secondary and the large scale corruption is the primary issue! Its the duty of the media to ensure spotlight on the corruption and its perpetrators!
It used to be "bloody civilians", now its "bloody politicians"!
One hates to say this, but this time the "battle for justice" is going too far. How can justice be served when both the judge and the investigating officer happen to be of the same sect, which is very much against that of the accused.
Without indulging in this leg pulling from either side I only want to clarify a historical fact. When Mussharf departed, Chairman Senet Mian Mohammad Khan Soomro was acting President. The elections were held afterwards and Zardari became president after 2 months (approx). So guard of owener issue was decided else where. It was given by then Army Chief to ex army chief. We drag only politicians, this has become our habit.
Obey the orders of Supreme Court.That is what the Constitution says.....
@Mirza: sire you are talking about that SC for which PPP did struggle to be restored .. but when these guys came in power they refused to restore it and accepted and followed a pco judge as CJ... whose decision regarding the graduation condition made zardari able to be a part of parliament .. and you talking about that mushraf to which this goernment said good bye with the guard of honour ... .. sire you must be understanding what i am trying to say.. what has happened to us .. you are talking about CJ's pco oath and forgeting his struggle for rule of law..? yes he made mistake by taking oath under pco .. but wasnt BHUTTO a part of and illegal government under ayub, wanst NAWAZ a part of illegal structure under zia .. ? even wasnt the prime minister gilani who says that he will go parliament etc, a part of setup under zia... ? brother we have to think now at least .. our opinion is AMANAT to our nation so better use it carefully
what will taking the issue to the parliament accomplish? can the parliament overrule the directives of the SC? Anybody who knows....
The govt should also get the opinion of the five elected provincial assemblies to the fact that who makes the laws and who implements them? Who has the sole authority to make all the executive appointments? The SC is only limited to interprete the constitution and nothing more than that. It should not be a trial court and leave that task to the lower courts and provincial HC. The PCO SC should be kept away from politics and listen to respected judges like F. Ibrahim. Did this SC took oath under 1973 constitution or still on the PCO oath for Mush?