Opposing the prime minister

The question of whether the speaker made the correct decision should be decided by parliament, not through litigation.

It was, perhaps, inevitable that the repercussions of the Supreme Court’s guilty verdict on Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s contempt case would continue to reverberate throughout the current government’s remaining term. The verdict and the slim prospect it brought of cutting short the government’s rule, was far too tempting for the opposition parties. And so, to no one’s surprise, the PML-N and the PTI have filed petitions in the Supreme Court challenging National Assembly Speaker Fehmida Mirza’s decision not to send a reference against the prime minister to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). Just because this move was expected, however, does not make it correct. The Supreme Court verdict against the prime minister did not explicitly remove him from power and it did not order the speaker to file a reference against him; it merely suggested those actions as possibilities. Mirza’s actions were entirely in accordance with both the law and the verdict which is why, in the interests of democracy, the matter should now be left alone.

The biggest problem with the PML-N and the PTI’s petitions is that they are seeking to have a purely legislative matter settled by the courts. The question of whether the speaker made the correct decision should be decided by parliament and not through litigation. The precedent set by these petitions is likely to set back the cause of civilian supremacy since every decision and action of parliament will now likely be dragged through the courts. There are only two ways that Gilani can be legally disqualified: either through a no-confidence motion or by a ruling of the ECP. Since both these options are no longer open to them, the opposition parties have taken the unprecedented move of having the Supreme Court act as the final arbiter on the actions of the speaker.

The Supreme Court itself has now become such an important political player that there is no way of knowing if it will accept the petition. However, the prudent move would be to reject it under Article 69 of the Constitution, which states that no outside institution can guide the speaker in his or her role as the custodian of the National Assembly. By ignoring that clause of the Constitution, the opposition parties have made clear that they are putting their own narrow interests ahead of the law of the land.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 30^th, 2012.