On February 13, a charge sheet against the prime minister of the federation was read out in the Supreme Court: “You, Yousaf Raza Gilani, the prime minister of Pakistan, have willfully flouted and disobeyed the direction given by this Court ... and therefore, you committed contempt of court ... We hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on above said charge (sic.)”.
No need to repeat the direction, though many may be forgiven for forgetting it as it all happened over two and a half years ago, during which period both Court and prime minister dragged their respective feet.
On April 26, the Court sprang to life — as headlined in the press it was ‘D-Day’, ‘The moment of reckoning’, the ‘PM to face justice’, and ‘All eyes on Supreme Court’. Well, according to the learned brethren of the Bench “the contempt committed ... tends to bring this Court and the judiciary of the country into ridicule”. Fair enough and by and large, apart from the party in power, all could not but agree. “... As regards the sentence to be passed against the convict we note that the findings and conviction for contempt of court ... ”. It was duly noted, then in the space of 32 seconds the ‘system’ was saved and preserved and presumably justice was done.
Was the ‘convict’ chastised? Not a bit. He was jubilant, as were what are known as his supporters, his bank of merry party people. Adding to the former two-and-a-half-year long ridicule were the rose petals flung in joyous jubilation and down in the prime ministerial home town, the heroic legal fraternity, staunch upholders of the independence of the judiciary, reportedly ‘performed’ bhangra and distributed sweets. The post-sentencing behaviour of deluded men who seem destined never to grow up, devoid of dignity or decorum, certainly did little in international eyes to lessen whatever ridicule had been heaped upon the country by the prolonged clash between two of the pillars that are in place to uphold the dignity, integrity and what have you, of the federation.
What was it that the Court ‘noted’? Well, only an article of the Constitution, which states that a person stands disqualified from being a member of parliament if “he has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for ... acting in any manner prejudicial to ... the integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary ... ”. In which case, the Speaker of the National Assembly is required to refer “any question” that may arise as to the disqualification of a member to the election commission with 30 days, whereafter the election commission will decide the matter within 90 days.
What is the betting that the Constitution will be flouted again? The prime minister maintained that by writing the letter as ordered he would be acting unconstitutionally, thereby directly implying that the Supreme Court itself was in conflict with the Constitution by ordering him to act unconstitutionally. And the Constitution itself is a mass of confusion of conflicting articles.
The prime minister, it seems, intends to remain prime minister regardless of courts, constitutions or even convention. He is where he is because his boss and co-chairman of his party wants him there.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 5th, 2012.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ