Govt is in a political muddle

Flashes mixed signals on banning Tehreek-e-Insaf

LAHORE:

The ruling party appeared to have put the country on a political merry-go-round on Tuesday, flashing mixed signals about its decision to impose a ban on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) — a move that drew flak from friends and foes alike.

One member of the ruling party claimed that the summary to try PTI under Article 6 had already been moved to the Supreme Court. Contrarily, another member suggested that the matter would be taken to parliament after consultations.

To top it off, Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) Ishaq Dar stated that no decision had been made in the first place, leaving everyone in limbo.

If this was not enough, former federal minister Khurram Dastagir opposed the decision and asserted that political parties should be fought in the political arena rather than through bans and legal proceedings.

The reason for heightened concern from PTI, already under the gun due to its anti-establishment stance, was spelt out by Defense Minister Khawaja Asif.

Asif, in a press conference in his hometown, defended the decision to ban PTI, and while alluding to Supreme Court judges, remarked that they were waiting until October — when the chief justice will retire — to address the matter of the February 8 general elections.

This implied that the government feared the top court, after the retirement of CJP Qazi Faiz Isa, whom it saw as its saviour, would take up the case of the highly controversial and dubious general elections. The case has the potential to not only disrupt the current setup but also to bring their arch-nemesis to power without the need for fresh elections.

Meanwhile, the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) remained true to its contemporary politics, playing it safe by abstaining from taking a principled stance on the issue, citing concerns about the lack of a consultative process within the ruling coalition, of which they were a part.

Their leaders’ statements were neither here nor there; some expressed that they were not in favour of banning any party, while others hinted that while they might not endorse such measures, PTI had made its bed and must lie in it.

PPP leaders said that the party had not taken a definitive position on the matter, indicating that the party’s ruling family would wait to see which way the wind blows before deciding their position.

Another recurring theme in their press conferences was the use of the Palestinian people’s suffering, who are facing genocide at the hands of Israel, to criticise America and score political points.

Defense Minister Khawaja Asif bemoaned that the United States was quick to express reservations about the government’s decision to ban PTI, yet failing to voice any concerns over the situation in Palestine.

This marked the second occasion where the minister took a jab at the US for staying silent on Palestine while commenting on Pakistan’s internal affairs.

‘No decision taken yet’

Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar, speaking to the media in Lahore, contradicted his cabinet colleague’s defence of the potential PTI ban earlier in the day.

Dar clarified that no decision to ban PTI had been made by the party yet, saying that such a decision would first be deliberated upon by the party leadership and then discussed with coalition partners.

He alleged that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) possessed evidence of PTI receiving foreign funding, including from Jewish and Hindu sources, but stressed that all actions would adhere strictly to the law.

When pressed further on the issue of banning PTI, Dar, sounding irritated, reiterated that no decision had been finalised. “The information minister clearly said [that the decision to ban] will be made by leadership after [consultation] with allies.”

The deputy prime minister, also serving as foreign minister, when questioned about the government’s focus on Imran Khan amid a volley of pressing issues facing the country, asserted that the government was diligently addressing the people’s challenges, unlike Imran Khan.

He asserted the government’s openness to consultation but condemned the events of May 9 as unacceptable.

Earlier in the day, Defence Minister Khawaja Asid held a press conference in his hometown to justify the potential ban, pointing out that PTI’s declared “Imran-first” policy meant that their existence hinged on Imran Khan’s leadership.

He said that those who violated the constitution by passing 52 bills in one session, illegally dismissing a no-confidence motion, and dissolving the assembly despite a pending no-confidence vote should be tired under Article 6.

He also accused Imran Khan and his party's leaders of lobbying in a bid to persuade the foreign powers to speak against Pakistan.

The defence minister further emphasised that any moves to prosecute those responsible for dissolving the assembly would align with Supreme Court rulings.

He supported Information Minister Atta Tarar’s assertion that trying PTI leaders under Article 6 was justified.

Turning to the judiciary, he urged courts to stay within their defined boundaries and uphold their own integrity. He pointed out the significant backlog of 2.6 million cases, questioning whether this backlog upheld the court’s credibility.

 

He argued against the misuse of contempt of court charges as a political weapon, advocating for equal treatment under the law for all constitutional institutions.

 

He argued that if courts demand respect like other constitutional institutions, then they should also extend the same respect in return. He pointed out that while attacking court buildings would result in charges under the penal code, no similar offence occurs when bases, core commander houses, or statuses are attacked. “Don’t they have any request?” he questioned.

 

In an allusion to the judiciary, he suggested they were biding their time until October for the February 8 elections matter.

 

Strangely, in a bid to justify his stance, he questioned why the same judges who were in lower courts and the SC during Nawaz Sharif’s mistreatment did not take action against the establishment’s interference in state matters.

 

He emphasised the importance of every institution operating within the bounds of the law, stressing that politicians should not appear weak in allowing encroachments on legislative matters. “Every institution should operate within the bounds of the law. Politicians should not be perceived as weak in allowing encroachments on their legislative turf.”

 

Khawaja Asif further questioned the absence of courts during the collapse of the RTS system, which resulted in election results being delivered on blank paper. However, it is worth noting that Khawaja Asif himself has been a beneficiary of the establishment’s interference in 2018.

 

He criticised the courts for their silence when people were prosecuted and sentenced by special courts during Imran Khan’s administration. He also suggested that judges responsible for decisions that caused significant harm to Pakistan should be tried under Article 6.

Khawaja Asif regarding the decision said that the decision will be placed before the parliament but only after consulting all (allied parties).

Regarding the decision, Khawaja Asif indicated it would be presented to parliament after consulting all allied parties.

When asked if the court would want the eight judges who had ruled in favour of PTI in the reserved seats case, he said it was a legal matter. However, he countered that if he could be tried under these circumstances, then those who introduced the doctrine of necessity, executed former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, or endorsed martial law should also face Article 6 charges, even if it means exhuming their bodies.

When asked if Pakistan can afford confrontation between institutions, he responded by referring to a proposed solution put forward by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who suggested a grand dialogue. He commented,

But some are inclined towards dialogue with the military. Old habits die hard, you see.”

Talal Chaudhry, another PML-N leader, mentioned on a private TV channel that the anti-state reference had been forwarded to the SC, where the matter would be decided.