A case for Article 6?

In his additional note on the Supreme Court’s detailed judgment on the ruling of the then deputy speaker of the National Assembly Qasim Suri, one judge urged the invocation of Article 6 of the Constitution against the then top government officials, including Imran Khan. The coalition of opposition parties defenestrated Khan from power and now seeks to pile up pressure on him and his party by setting up a committee to probe whether or not Article 6 can be invoked and against whom.

The PTI has in return bolstered its US conspiracy narrative, claiming that the government decision reeks of political victimisation given its timing just before the Punjab by-elections. PTI’s “irrefutable evidence” in support of its foreign conspiracy narrative has been quashed by the National Security Committee, indicating that internal tensions between different quarters might have been the reason for Khan’s premature ouster from power. Even though the political milieu remains polarised on the matter, the application of Article 6 is a highly contentious and debatable issue. While a case could be made against Khan’s attempt to subvert the Constitution, with some claiming the events transpiring on April 3 as an act of civilian coup, it must also be acknowledged that Pakistan’s history is replete with instances in which the Constitution was subverted, violated and held in abeyance by military rulers — later protected by the judiciary thanks to the law of necessity. If far more harsher acts had been carried out with impunity in the past, then the case for “high treason” against Khan and his senior party colleagues weakens significantly.

Under the law, only the federal government can move a complaint under Article 6 of the Constitution. A special tribunal comprising three judges of high courts conducts the trial. The prosecution has to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. Though the incumbent government is not bound to wait for the court ruling to initiate treason proceedings, it is required to get solid evidence to establish the case. However, the situation is different in the present case wherein the main judgment does not rule that the then top government functionaries — President, PM, Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Law Minister — subverted the Constitution.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 18^th, 2022.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.