The prime minister and the SC
Procedure of getting rid of him will be complicated, be overtaken by next elections. That price, he is willing to pay.
Speaking on the occasion of the convocation of the Islamia University Bahawalpur, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani plumped for martyrdom rather than obedience to the edict of the Supreme Court demanding that he write a letter asking Switzerland to reopen graft cases against the chief of his party, President Asif Ali Zardari. He said he’d rather go to jail than write the letter which will be “a violation of the Constitution, which is treason and which carries the death sentence”. He made a further calculus: “If I don’t write, I will be convicted for contempt, the punishment for which is six months imprisonment”. The audience understood the calculus and shouted, “Don’t write the letter!”
Away from Bahawalpur, most people don’t think so. Lawyers and judicial experts think he should write the letter and put an end to his government’s stubborn pattern of flouting the authority of the Supreme Court. Even the lawyer, who defends him in the contempt case at the Supreme Court once thought that he should have written the letter, stating that the earlier letter calling off the Swiss case was hereby withdrawn. Somehow, the PPP and its leader were certain that once the letter was written, the proceedings in Switzerland would restart and lead to conviction of President Zardari for money laundering. The Swiss officials say that if President Zardari enjoys immunity from litigation in Pakistan, he would be exempted in Switzerland, too. That’s where the rub is.
It will ultimately depend on what the Supreme Court has to say about the immunity of the president under the Constitution. Judging from the obiter dicta of the Honourable Court it seems that it has a different interpretation of the constitutional article saying that a president can’t be impugned. One erstwhile judge of the Court likely unveiled the mind of the Court when he said the matter of reference to the Swiss government was in the nature of civil law not covered by the said article of the Constitution. Whatever may be the view of the layman, the fact is that the word of the Supreme Court is final and has to be obeyed if the country’s legal order is to survive. Yet, professional view in favour of the Court is challenged by a section of the lawyers practising at the apex court.
The argument centres on the supremacy of parliament and the right of review of the Supreme Court. In a sense, parliament is supreme because it can make laws and abrogate them and even prevent the judiciary from handing down a verdict by pre-emptively legislating against it. But practice in other countries shows that the judiciary has the right to review even a constitutional amendment. Given the popularity of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the comparatively low reputation of the PPP government in governance, the former seems to win the mind of the common man. For those who adhere to the principles of democracy, it is important that the PPP and its coalition partners enjoy a majority in parliament and can’t be made to go away.
The PPP has been a party hard done by. It has been (wrongly!) regarded as a security risk and removed from power, with the opposition parties agreeing (wrongly!) with the army. Now the army and the opposition are seen to be out hunting for it again via the Supreme Court. A small minority of lawyers think that the Supreme Court has gone too far in its suo motu pursuit and looks like following the spoor of a vendetta with the PPP in general and its leader President Zardari in particular. Hence, the sense of martyrdom among the people which Prime Minister Gilani seems to opt for when he says he will not write the letter. The case of treason (sic!) against his government brought to the Court on the basis of the revelations of an American citizen Mansoor Ijaz has not gone so well for the army and the major opposition party, the PML-N.
One opinion is that that if Mr Gilani is sentenced in contempt and given two years in jail — which is not possible, the maximum being six months — he will lose his membership of parliament, but then the procedure of getting rid of him will be complicated and be overtaken by the next elections. That price, it is apparent, he is willing to pay.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 19th, 2012.
Away from Bahawalpur, most people don’t think so. Lawyers and judicial experts think he should write the letter and put an end to his government’s stubborn pattern of flouting the authority of the Supreme Court. Even the lawyer, who defends him in the contempt case at the Supreme Court once thought that he should have written the letter, stating that the earlier letter calling off the Swiss case was hereby withdrawn. Somehow, the PPP and its leader were certain that once the letter was written, the proceedings in Switzerland would restart and lead to conviction of President Zardari for money laundering. The Swiss officials say that if President Zardari enjoys immunity from litigation in Pakistan, he would be exempted in Switzerland, too. That’s where the rub is.
It will ultimately depend on what the Supreme Court has to say about the immunity of the president under the Constitution. Judging from the obiter dicta of the Honourable Court it seems that it has a different interpretation of the constitutional article saying that a president can’t be impugned. One erstwhile judge of the Court likely unveiled the mind of the Court when he said the matter of reference to the Swiss government was in the nature of civil law not covered by the said article of the Constitution. Whatever may be the view of the layman, the fact is that the word of the Supreme Court is final and has to be obeyed if the country’s legal order is to survive. Yet, professional view in favour of the Court is challenged by a section of the lawyers practising at the apex court.
The argument centres on the supremacy of parliament and the right of review of the Supreme Court. In a sense, parliament is supreme because it can make laws and abrogate them and even prevent the judiciary from handing down a verdict by pre-emptively legislating against it. But practice in other countries shows that the judiciary has the right to review even a constitutional amendment. Given the popularity of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the comparatively low reputation of the PPP government in governance, the former seems to win the mind of the common man. For those who adhere to the principles of democracy, it is important that the PPP and its coalition partners enjoy a majority in parliament and can’t be made to go away.
The PPP has been a party hard done by. It has been (wrongly!) regarded as a security risk and removed from power, with the opposition parties agreeing (wrongly!) with the army. Now the army and the opposition are seen to be out hunting for it again via the Supreme Court. A small minority of lawyers think that the Supreme Court has gone too far in its suo motu pursuit and looks like following the spoor of a vendetta with the PPP in general and its leader President Zardari in particular. Hence, the sense of martyrdom among the people which Prime Minister Gilani seems to opt for when he says he will not write the letter. The case of treason (sic!) against his government brought to the Court on the basis of the revelations of an American citizen Mansoor Ijaz has not gone so well for the army and the major opposition party, the PML-N.
One opinion is that that if Mr Gilani is sentenced in contempt and given two years in jail — which is not possible, the maximum being six months — he will lose his membership of parliament, but then the procedure of getting rid of him will be complicated and be overtaken by the next elections. That price, it is apparent, he is willing to pay.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 19th, 2012.