Public officeholders must set higher examples: SC

The top court has noted that holders of public position are under a heavier onus to live up to the highest standards of rectitude so as to command respect and inspire public confidence and that immunity provided to some officials is confined to the exercise of powers of their respective offices.

“Immunity provided to the president, a governor, the prime minister, a federal minister, a minister of state , a chief minister and a provincial minister is confined to the exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices.

“[It is also confined to] the acts done or performance of functions of their respective offices and for the acts done or purported to be done in exercise of powers and performance of their official functions,” said a six-page written judgment on an appeal of former interior minister Rehman Malik.

The Supreme Court on October 1 rejected Malik’s appeal against the Islamabad High Court (IHC) September 1 order. The IHC had referred to a Justice of Peace for review an application of the US blogger Cynthia Dawn Ritchie, who sought registration of a rape cages against Malik.

Authoring the judgment, Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed said Senator Malik is certainly entitled to all statutory safeguards available to any accused confronting accusation.

“[However,] he cannot claim immunity for having held high offices or on account of his current status of being a member of the Senate of Pakistan,” the order said.

The apex court noted that the Constitution commands equality before law and extends equal protection to the citizens regardless of their station, stature or stature in life, the law is above them all. It said the president or governor can only escape prosecution on criminal charges during incumbency in the office.

Since the law does not authorize holders of any office howsoever high to commit a crime or do anything inconsistent with law, even the limited functional immunity cannot be pressed into service to hold the process of law in abeyance.

Therefore, the court said, Malik like holders of any public office, ministerial, judicial or otherwise is required to respond to the accusation before the designated tribunals so as to vindicate his position as he has successfully done in the previous round before a Justice for Peace. 

The court while referring to its two years old judgment said the law declared in that case does not obstruct recording of a First Information Report (FIR) on the premise of accusation of a cognizable offence being false.

The court, examining the Rule 24.4 of the Police Rules 1934, noted that the rule does not tyrannically foreclose doors to a complainant to voice his/her grievances nor it dogmatically empowers an officer in-charge to terminate a prosecution before its inception on his subjective belief of its being false.

“Its application is subservient to the scheme laid down in Part V of the code and thus has to essentially read in conjunction with Section 169.” It said an officer in-charge can possibly invoke the rule that too for reasons strong and manifest after registration of the FIR in view of the Lahore High Court 1991 order.

The apex court noted the said rule certainly empowers the officer in-charge to decline to take adverse action against an accused who he justly and fairly considers being hounded on a trump up charge for motives, obliquely circulated.

“We have not been able to find any jurisdictional error or flaw in the [IHC] order calling for interference in remission of the issue to the Justice of Peace for decision afresh within the framework of the law declared by this court,” it noted.

In June, US blogger Cynthia D Ritchie who is regarded as a vocal critic of PPP leaders including its slain chairperson Benazir Bhutto claimed that Malik had spiked her drink and raped her at his official residence in 2011, during his tenure as the country’s top security czar.