With the military’s 1999 transgressions and their judicial validation, the judiciary let bygones be bygones. This decision was actually taken by the 2002 rubber-stamp parliament that had emerged from rigged elections. However, as the chief justice recently remarked, courts can nullify unconstitutional legislation. But the courts did not nullify this indemnity for good reasons. The courts had made major amends through their 2007 struggle, while the military had made some amends by allowing free elections in 2008. Thus, charging both for past transgressions when they had made subsequent amends was inadvisable given the risk of undermining the system. In trying political actors, one must apply both legal and political lenses, so long as doing so primarily benefits the country and not the actors.
However, this logic should have also extended to the financial misdeeds of politicians who, too, had shown some remorse and had promised to perform better in the future under the Charter of Democracy. Leading politicians had also spent years in jail, often without conviction.
Moreover, the people’s court forgave them their past financial misdeeds by re-electing them in 2008. While none of this provided legal amnesty, a political basis existed for forgiving past political corruption and focusing on fresh transgressions, as for the military. However, for politicians, the courts chose to pursue the past.
Courts usually focus on the constitutional and criminal transgressions committed by individuals. However, they have the right to ensure that all constitutional provisions are enforced. This role gives them the right to intrude in administrative matters and institutional tugs of wars where fundamental public interests are involved. In pursuing cases ranging from sugar prices to the memo case to the overall security situation in Karachi and Balochistan, the SC has significantly enhanced its scope, but without providing a clear strategic framework for evaluating its choices. Thus, both temporally and substantively, it has often appeared unfocused, overstretched and often ineffective.
Shifting gears to specific cases, the most controversial one, perhaps, has been the Swiss case. Beyond the SC’s decision to pursue it rather than consigning it to historians, its handling of the case has been puzzling, as it has failed to explain why the matter must be pursued even though President Asif Ali Zardari enjoys immunity. If it feels that the immunity is not absolute, why not pursue the case itself? To disqualify an elected PM, however, poorly-performing, for not writing a letter to another court for a case which the SC is not pursuing itself and in which the PM is not even involved directly seems disproportionate. An elected PM should only be dismissed judicially if they commit major crimes themselves. The only reason this dismissal has not derailed Pakistan’s fragile democracy is because the PM is a figurehead presently. Perhaps, this fear of derailing the system discouraged the Court from trying President Zardari directly. However, even so, this proxy targeting by dismissing the PM makes little sense.
However, all institutional evaluation must ultimately be undertaken relative to the institution’s own past performance and the current performance of other institutions. On both counts, the current SC scores highly. Unlike past courts, the current SC has fiercely established its independence. While other institutions, e.g., political parties, media and the military, still commit major constitutional and criminal transgressions, the SC at worst now merely sometimes displays imperfect judgment. Viewed so, the higher judiciary is far ahead in the transformation from the inefficient and politicised institutions that have existed within Pakistan to date to the merit-oriented institutions that it needs in order to progress economically. However, the judiciary must display greater patience towards the slower evolution of political parties, which are much more enmeshed within Pakistani society’s centuries-old, patronage-driven political economy.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 5th, 2012.
COMMENTS (5)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
"Unlike past courts, the current SC has fiercely established its independence. "
A good judge should not just be independent but unbiased. This judiciary cannot be described as unbiased. It allows its political and religious biases influence its rulings= which is unfortunate.
There is nothing more that I will agree with you. Excellent job.
Why don't you carefully read the NRO judgement before commenting on it? It was not about Zardari's immunity. It was about restoring things to what they were before NRO came into existence. This meant all cases under NRO were revived - reports about these cases are regularly submitted to the court - and so why the Swiss cases should be given an exception? Several people were involved in those cases and if presidential immunity was an issue then proceedings against him would be held in abeyance while the rest will proceed and Pakistan's civil claims on the monies would be maintained. Any Zardari specific cases would be continued once he was no longer the president. Through out the NRO related proceedings the immunity was never raised by the government as an issue - check Aitezaz's arguments before the court; it is raised only as a diversion so that the Swiss cases should be completely killed and those involved in them be let go even though some of them have been sentenced by the Swiss courts, again a fact admitted by Aitezaz and the current AG in the court.
For politicians, the courts to pursue the past. But who will pursue the past of PCO judges. Parliament should take this task.
"The institution’s own past performance and the current performance of other institutions. On both counts, the current SC scores highly". I slightly differ from above statement, The prime aim of judiciary is to provide clean and prompt justice to the hapless people of Pakistan in which the lower cadre of this institution has failed miserably. The corporate decisionsmade at higher level seemed not to bring any good change in the suppressed lives of ordinary person. The powerful rich abuse poor, police brutality is on its peak and qabza mafia is on rampage and the only saviour has to be judiciary which is just not doing what it ought to be. This is the responsibility of the Superior judiciary whose priority is personal squabbles at the top level. The poor man waiting for justice is in limbo as before, so where and how current SC scores highly?