Contempt for the rest

Contempt of Court Act grants an exemption for Prime Minister from the constitutional law that governs the country.

Nadir Hassan July 19, 2012
Contempt for the rest

There are few who would disagree that Pakistan has a dual justice system. Those who have the means to escape accountability for their flagrant law-breaking do so with obscene flagrancy. Paying taxes is a punishment that is reserved only for those who are paid a salary and thus have their share to the national exchequer cut off at the source. If you are lucky enough to own a business or have connections with those who matter, then taxation is an alien concept that you may have heard of, something akin to the Loch Ness Monster but not something that you have ever actually experienced in the flesh.

All right-thinking people obviously condemn the ease with which the most wealthy and powerful among us get away with flouting the law. As bad as being able to get away with not paying your burden of tax revenue may be, what truly stings is that this state of affairs breeds inequality, with a different rules set for people who can afford to ignore the law.

How, then, is the recent contempt of judiciary bill passed by the National Assembly any less unfair than the apartheid-like tax system prevalent in the country? You have a group of lawmakers who have decided that their leaders deserve an exemption from the constitutional law that governs the country. Sure, like those who dodge their taxes, the parliamentarians have high-sounding reasons to explain why they believe an exception needs to be carved out of the law for themselves. Just like most industrialists say that they don’t pay taxes since giving money to such corrupt governments would be quite immoral, members of parliament argue that their leaders need to be protected from a judiciary drunk on its own power.

For the sake of argument, let’s concede that the Supreme Court exceeded its mandate in charging the prime minister with contempt of court. I happen to disagree with that contention since flouting an order of the judiciary should be somehow punishable. But, even if the Court erred, making a permanent law on the basis of one flawed judgment is always a bad idea. In order to protect future hypothetical heads of government from being kicked out by an indignant judiciary, the National Assembly has now given prime ministers carte blanche to ignore each and every verdict handed out by the Supreme Court. And if we look at the history of this country, leaders who consider themselves above the law of the land are far more prevalent than rogue Supreme Courts. These future leaders’ disdain for such trifles as Supreme Court verdicts have now been codified into law.

This same attitude, which says that the most powerful in the country need even further indemnity from the consequences of the law, is already written into the Constitution. The 1973 Constitution is a very fine document so long as you ignore all the exceptions written in it. We are guaranteed all our freedoms — so long as they don’t end up hurting the delicate feelings of the judiciary, the armed forces or those who are religiously sensitive. What these exceptions do is essentially nullify the constitutional protections that precede them. The right to free speech must include the right to offend sacred cows. Similarly, any punishment prescribed by law must be equally applicable to everyone or they just end up being a hammer with which to beat down those who do not have sufficient power or money. Even loyalists of the PPP, who feel hard done by, should not end up in a position where they defend a system that only provides justice to some.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 20th, 2012.


Syed Ali | 11 years ago | Reply

Mirza O Mirza,

The PM's counsel (Aitzaz Ahsan) explicitly refused to plead the president's immunity arguing that its not for the PM to argue in favour of the President's immunity or lack thereof. Aitzaz restricted himself however to arguing that because the PM understood that the President has immunity, which issue is not the PM's place to argue in a court because the immunity in question belongs to the President and not to the PM, so the PM can't be guilty of contempt of court. Do you now understand who was playing hide-and-seek (not musical chairs!) - it was the PPP and not the court i.e. the PM tried to hide behing the President's immunity but refuse to reveal/plead it in his defence as the immunity belonged to the President and not the PM. More importantly, you need to understand for all times to come that its not for you or the PM to decide whether a Supreme Court order is in line with or against the constitution. The Supreme Court's word "is" the law and that's it - there is no choice about it. Finally, as I already explained conclusively in another thread, its pointless to respond to present allegations with narratives of the past that are irrelevant to the present cases at hand. Such an approach is really only for the very dumb! Its rather basic that present charges can and will only be judged on "relevant" merit.
Mirza | 11 years ago | Reply The PM's stand has always been that the president has immunity against prosecution and therefore he is not going to write a letter against the constitution. There was no other reason or logic not to do that as it was against constitution. The PCO SC judges should have decided that it is not against constitution and elected president has no immunity. They failed to take up the actual reason and the musical chair game goes on. The irony is every military dictator and each of their acts of treason has immunity and never prosecuted however, the elected president is an exception and should be prosecuted despite having constitutional immunity. Gen Zia and Gen Mush have been army chief, president and head of their political parties and these judges had no problem ever. However, the elected president should not be political, but the people on the army payroll should. Mush did the right thing to throw these judges in detention when he saw them as politically motivated. Yet they would not dare go against Gen Must even today for contempt.
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