Contempt for contempt: It is legal for PM to disobey, criticise court

Opposition up in arms as contempt of court bill bulldozed through National Assembly session.


Qamar Zaman July 09, 2012

ISLAMABAD:


The urgency was palpable.


A contentious bill, effectively providing immunity to high-office holders to disobey court orders and a free hand for the public to criticise the judiciary, was bulldozed through the National Assembly on Monday night by the government.

The timing of the legislation, passed after a marathon session, is key. The bill will ostensibly provide cover for Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf from possible disqualification by the Supreme Court, which had sought his compliance on an earlier verdict to write to Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari. The premier’s reply was sought by July 12 (Thursday). This case had led to the disqualification and unseating of Yousaf Raza Gilani as premier on contempt of court charges last month.

With the new premier also expected to refuse to write the letter, like his predecessor, the government feared similar consequences for the new chief executive.

Clause 3 (I) of the bill reads: “exercise of powers and performance of functions by a public office holder of his respective office under clause (1) of Article 248 of the Constitution for any act done or purported to be done in exercise of those powers and performance of those functions,” shall not amount to commission of contempt of court. The office holders referred to are: the prime minister, federal ministers, provincial chief ministers, provincial ministers, provincial governors, and the president.

Aside from the protection, it also allows for general criticism “in good faith” of the judiciary without resulting in contempt of court charges. “Fair comments about the general working of courts made in good faith in the public interest and in temperate language; fair comments on the merits of a decision of a court made, after the pendency of the proceedings in a case, in good faith and in temperate language,” shall not amount to contempt of court.

Section 13 of the bill said that Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 (v of 2003) stood repealed. It further said: “for removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that the Contempt of Court Act 1976 (LXIV of 1976), Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 (IV of 2003) and Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2004 (I of 2004) stand repealed.”

The bill still has to be passed by the Senate, and then signed by the president – which will probably be done before July 12, when the court takes up the Swiss letter matter.

Opposition outraged

The 13-clause bill was passed in a marathon session of the National Assembly amid protest by the opposition Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) which called it a “black day for democracy.”

The opposition raised objections against the government’s decision to not to send the bill to the relevant standing committee for deliberations and they kept on demanding time as per rules. But time was of the essence for the government.

“You are in hurry but don’t make parliament a shield against your misdeeds,” said Sardar Mehtab Khan Abbasi from the PML-N. “The PPP respects the judiciary despite the fact we are victims of justice,” said Law Minister Farooq H. Naek, defending the bill and intent of the government. He said there are a number of contempt of court cases in the courts but there was confusion about the relevant law. This bill will bring an end to all misunderstandings, he added.  “It is a bill to create equality between the judges and parliamentarians,” said Naek, while laying the bill before the house.

While felicitating the house over the passage of the bill, the prime minister said the law will provide full opportunity for a fair trial and a transparent procedure for right to appeal.

However, Khawaja Saad Rafiq from the PML-N said that the only purpose of the bill is to tie the hands of the superior judiciary since it gives licence to abuse authority. “Through such legislation, you (government) are inviting undemocratic forces,” he added.

Meanwhile, the government also introduced the 21st Constitutional Amendment bill aimed at increasing the pension of widows of judges of Supreme Court and high courts from 50% to 75%.


Published in The Express Tribune, July 10th, 2012.

COMMENTS (46)

Supporting Disobeying Court Orders | 9 years ago | Reply

It is indeed quite surprising to read a lawyer like Asma Jehangir urging the Supreme Court to show restraint in dealing with contempt cases. Since the apex court disqualified Yousaf Raza Gilani, quite a few columnists have termed it as a 'judicial coup'. In effect what they are trying to say is; Supreme Court you cannot sentence or disqualify the Prime Minister for disobeying a court order. The court has shown a lot of restraint by not taking notice of a number of accusations being hurled at it. But when a well known lawyer and a human rights activist to boot starts asking the court to show restraint; there has to be something seriously wrong. Supporting an elected leader's stance to disobey court orders is utter rubbish. A leader is supposed to lead by example; which sadly is not the case, and to top it supporting his wrong doings; that's like the icing on the cake. Inviting people to disobey court orders is in itself hypocrisy.

m.b.f.h. | 9 years ago | Reply It's a New Day for the Nation, the Elected Representatives of the People of Pakistan can breath easy while working for the people after Six decades of humiliation and persecution at the hands of Dictators & their blind Cronies in the Judiciary. After all, the Power of Decision in the hands of 400 men & women selected by all of the People of Pakistan can serve the Nation better than the power in the hands of Few Angry Men. We must know this amendment is only for the protection against the Contempt-of-Court like cases and not against any other Crimes that a Public leaders commits or charged with.
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

E-Publications

Most Read