Government fires back at judiciary

Khwaja Asif stated that govt had decided to raise the retirement age of government servants

LAHORE:

As the government continued its scathing attack on the honourable judges of the Supreme Court and their recent judgment, sitting ministers have agreed to a proposed plan to extend the superannuation date of judges and military personnel by increasing the retirement age of government servants altogether, a move claimed by a former jurist to be the reason behind PML-N’s outcry.

Addressing a news conference in his hometown, Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif said that the consequences of what he termed a political decision would be devastating.

He further stated that the government had decided to raise the retirement age of government servants, including those in the military and judiciary, to alleviate the pension burden on the national kitty. He emphasised that by extending the retirement age, the service years of officers would increase without affecting their promotions.

Punjab Information Minister Azma Bukhari echoed allegations that judges were influencing decisions to thwart the government’s move.

Speculations were rife on social media about the government’s intent to extend the tenure of Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Esa and another powerful individual, seen in the context of PTI’s rivalry with the establishment. The move was expected to have far-reaching political consequences, especially with PML-N openly aiming to contain PTI, the largest single party.

From barring PTI rallies to filing a slew of cases against their leaders and keeping them in prolonged incarceration, the PML-N led government alliance has employed overt measures in its two terms in power.

Retired Justice Wajidudin Ahmad stated that the government had wanted to extend the tenure of the COAS and other SC judges, for which they required a constitutional amendment. Now, since this decision pulled the rug from under their feet by taking away the two-thirds majority, effectively shattering their dream of unchecked rule, the government was crying foul.

This, he reckoned, was part of a larger conspiracy, and two judges bowing out of the top court and the character assassination of multiple judges were part and parcel of this scheme.

He advised the judiciary to stay calm and ignore the well-planned move to ruffle their feathers. Defending the decision, he said that the judiciary has not overstepped its boundaries, as claimed by the government.

“The judgment was limited to denying PTI its symbol, period. It did not take away the right to association.”

In fact, this is a conspiracy that was hatched when the Election Act was being promulgated, where taking away the election symbol was translated as denying anyone the right to associate with a party.

This amendment was frequently and superstitiously added to the act and SC was apparently unaware of it and ECP deceitfully concealed this fact. This has happened multiple times before when the dispensation of the time had extended the tenure of the SC CJ to seek favourable decisions., he added.

 

‘Opening floodgates’

 

Meanwhile, the defence minister, regarding the decision to file a review, said that the decision would be taken in the parliament in consultation with allies.

He stated this decision would lead to another legal anomaly, namely the declaration of joining SIC. “How can those MNAs who have declared to have joined SIC now give another declaration of being part of PTI? Wouldn’t it amount to fraud?”

Secondly, he mentioned that the SC is limited in the scope of review under Article 185 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Here, they went beyond this scope.

He claimed this decision trespasses into the turf of the ECP, parliament, and executive, which are constitutional institutions. Not only that, but it also flouted the decision of its own subordinate court.

He said this decision has opened the floodgates of politics, where politics would dictate everything, which he claimed would lead to constitutional anarchy.

“When the top court does not adhere to the constitution, how can another institution be accused of violating it?” he questioned.

 

‘Black Day’

 

Meanwhile, the provincial information minister termed it a black day, calling the decision the pinnacle of the doctrine of necessity. She pointed out that in the past, the doctrine was limited to dictators, but this time it was accorded “to a blue-eyed civil martial law administrator”.

She noted that this was not an isolated concession but “part of an ongoing scheme” by Imran Khan, who first benefited from the interpretation of Article 63-A, whereby MPAs who had crossed the floor to PML-N lost the right to vote.

She claimed that it was so unexpected for PTI that even their lawyer, Ali Zafar, admitted they hadn’t anticipated it, as they had only sought the court’s affection.

She said that there was much talk of interference during the proceedings, but from what has transpired, it seems the allegations of interference were either a pack of lies or the agencies have forgotten how to meddle in cases.

She cited PM-LN cases where, according to her, interference was rampant, adding that this decision was a show of affection for Imran Khan, where the constitution lost, and whims prevailed.

The PML-N leader accused the judges of “having a crush on Imran Khan”, saying that for this infatuation, all rules and regulations were sidelined. Out of their fondness for Imran Khan, they likened themselves to ‘wasps,’ but unfortunately, this ‘wasp’ stung the constitution, she added.

She also quoted a post on a microblogging website where former PTI leader Shehbaz Gill posted a picture of an actor dancing while coming out of court, implying it was judge Athar Minallah.

She cited another former PTI leader, Chaudhary Fawad, who wrote about the court’s reaction when people challenge them.

Shehzad Akbar, another former PTI leader, posted “Justice Mansoor Ali Shah smash.”

There was talk on social media about the decision being 8 to 5. She cheekily mentioned that this wasn’t her view but what social media posts suggested.

She said the Supreme Court has awarded or blessed PTI with these seats, which they didn’t even ask for. Judges even corrected the technical mistakes made by PTI lawyers.

Mockingly, she said that the top court could have given these seats to people from neighbouring countries like India or Bangladesh. “Strangely, those affected by this decision were not even given an audience.”

She warned that the decision has also cracked open the door to floor crossing, adding that the ECP’s laws have been made redundant.

The SC should have clarified under what law these seats are being given back to PTI, she added. She mentioned that the level of relief was such that this anomaly could be dealt with by approaching the chamber, as has been graciously allowed to PTI.

The PML-N leader also talked about institutional domains and how overstepping them has caused devastation in Pakistan. She said there was chatter on social media that this decision was made out of fear of Qazi Faiz Isa getting an extension.

When a journalist asked if even Qazi Faiz Esa, along with three other dissenting judges, concurred that reserved seats should have gone to PTI, was the Minister implying “Imran is Qazi’s crush as well”, she said that any respectable person gets pressurized when faced with such online harassment.

When the same journalist asked what action, the government would take against ECP for misreading the court’s judgment, she dodged the question, stating that ECP must explain its own position.

A senior lawyer, who is an office-bearer of PML-N, however, disagreed with his party, stating that the court does have the authority under Article 187 to make the decision. Though he said this without any doubt is an exceptional relief that is only accorded selectively.

He also believed that chatter about Qazi Faiz Isa’s extension played a pivotal role in this decision.

However, he said this decision would bring a semblance of normality to the country, as by no means could reserve seats against those won squarely by PTI be awarded to any other party. However, he mentioned that such decisions set a wrong precedent for the times to come.