Truth and consequences
Decisions or actions should not be taken for the sake of an individual, or to save them from accountability.
The latest comments from the Supreme Court on the need to implement its directions on the defunct National Reconciliation Ordinance, or face the consequences of any decision not to do so, will only add to the sense of crisis we have lived with now for months. The sense that it may be deepening is not reassuring at all. To complicate matters, there is also constitutional confusion. The apex court has remained indifferent to the issue of presidential immunity, while the government has continued to hold that, in its presence, the Swiss cases cannot be re-opened. In this it also takes into account the fact that the Swiss attorney general said in an interview earlier this year that any such cases could be re-opened only if the immunity enjoyed by the president was lifted by parliament.
There is a great sense of uncertainty which has an impact on almost every aspect of life in the country. A summary on this whole issue has been sent to the prime minister and it lays down the argument for and existence of presidential immunity. The court’s interpretation of this will come into play once the summary is presented before it. All this is of course not good for the country. Of course, it goes without saying that all institutions of the state need to work within their constitutionally-defined boundaries. Decisions or actions should not be taken for the sake of an individual, or to save them from accountability — but at the same time the call for accountability and greater transparency should be above board. A good example of this is that while politicians and civilians are being held accountable for their acts of omission and commission why are similar demands not made for, say, defence expenditures? Surely, the recently-reported fact that the defence budget was quietly raised by Rs110 billion — a sum that would come most in handy in dealing with the post-flood relief and rehabilitation effort — should invite similar concern from institutional watchdogs and monitors. All sides need to exercise maximum restraint because by doing so they would be ensuring the longevity of the democratic system and that is in everyone’s interest.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 26th, 2010.
There is a great sense of uncertainty which has an impact on almost every aspect of life in the country. A summary on this whole issue has been sent to the prime minister and it lays down the argument for and existence of presidential immunity. The court’s interpretation of this will come into play once the summary is presented before it. All this is of course not good for the country. Of course, it goes without saying that all institutions of the state need to work within their constitutionally-defined boundaries. Decisions or actions should not be taken for the sake of an individual, or to save them from accountability — but at the same time the call for accountability and greater transparency should be above board. A good example of this is that while politicians and civilians are being held accountable for their acts of omission and commission why are similar demands not made for, say, defence expenditures? Surely, the recently-reported fact that the defence budget was quietly raised by Rs110 billion — a sum that would come most in handy in dealing with the post-flood relief and rehabilitation effort — should invite similar concern from institutional watchdogs and monitors. All sides need to exercise maximum restraint because by doing so they would be ensuring the longevity of the democratic system and that is in everyone’s interest.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 26th, 2010.