A good day’s hearing

It would be fair to say that Pakistan is slowly, but surely, moving towards constitutional rule.

The Supreme Court proceedings ended on January 19 with a clear message to all those who had been worried about any dramatic consequences following the Supreme Court’s January 16 order instructing the prime minister to appear in person and explain why he should not be charged with contempt of court. The message was that neither side will make rash or populist moves, and that a genuine judicial process, operating within constitutional parameters, is at work in which the government will plead its case primarily on legal grounds. Starting from February 1, the coming hearings will focus on the implementation of the NRO judgment and the question of presidential immunity, while the issue of charging the prime minister with contempt of court may become secondary.

The prime minister, who walked in with Aitzaz Ahsan as his lawyer, has signalled to the Supreme Court that from now on the government will not be evasive or confrontationist in dealing with the apex court or its orders.

Meanwhile, in pleading his innocence before the Court the prime minister himself made four important points. One, that the PPP remains committed to upholding the Constitution and acknowledges its supremacy. Two, by recalling the personal appearances in the Court of successive PPP leaders and their past adherence to Court orders, he argued that the PPP’s respect for the judiciary is an established fact. Three, that the president of Pakistan enjoys, within Pakistan, immunity under Article 248, and that outside he enjoys immunity under the Vienna Convention. Finally, the prime minister said that the entire parliament supported the immunity of the president since in the 18th Amendment, in which many articles were amended, there was an all-party consensus to not change that clause.

The prime minister’s submission and presence prompted Justice Asif Khosa to observe that this was a great day for the rule of law in the history of Pakistan “irrespective of the outcome of the case”. That said, the prime minister’s lawyer will have to explain to the Court why the latter should change its view that the government has been dragging its feet on the implementation of the NRO judgment.


On this matter, Aitzaz Ahsan has already responded by saying that he will submit a detailed response to what orders were passed and how the government responded. The public perception also is that, leaving aside the letter to the Swiss authorities, the government has not fully implemented the Court’s NRO judgment. The prime minister has been exempted from further appearances while Aitzaz Ahsan will argue why his client “acted in good faith” and by not writing the letter upheld the Constitution of Pakistan, which provides immunity to the president against all criminal proceedings.

While we all await the Supreme Court hearings, there is an important and related issue on which the Honourable Chief Justice should, in his own wisdom and his commitment to upholding the dignity of the Supreme Court, pass an immediate order. All gatherings, protests or celebrations and sloganeering by lawyers must be prohibited with immediate effect. Irrespective of which political party or which judge such a gathering supports, this undermines the institutional dignity of the Supreme Court. On the day of the hearing, some lawyers were chanting slogans in favour of the PPP, and many more were raising pro-Chief Justice and anti-government slogans. Surely, the apex court is not the place for such sloganeering.

In the post-2007 Pakistan, the intrinsic authority of our institutions must be made operational. One hopes that in the coming days, the government is going to be more obedient in the implementation of the NRO judgment, barring the letter to the Swiss authorities which will be argued by the government’s lawyer.

On that note, it would be fair to say that Pakistan is slowly, but surely, moving towards constitutional rule. While the lawyers and the media must remain vigilant that due process is followed by all parties, the forum for debating or advocating that is the media and other public forums, not the Supreme Court premises.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 20th, 2012.
Load Next Story