Crisis management: Political parties advise top court not to interfere
The bench will hear the case today despite parties being unhappy about it
ISLAMABAD:
Opposition parties requested the Supreme Court (SC) to allow the parliament to settle the ongoing political impasse and not get involved in political affairs.
On Wednesday, the top court had sought suggestions from all parliamentary parties on the most suitable method to address the political crisis in a constitutional manner. Earlier this week, the SC had also offered to play a constructive role in the negotiation process between the protesters and the government.
The bench will hear the case today (Friday) despite political parties being unhappy about it.
Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan – counsel for Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) – submitted a reply requesting the court to refrain from determining the scope of Articles 15, 16 and 17 of the Constitution with respect to the ongoing protests.
According to sources, the reply categorically states that parliament and provincial assemblies should be allowed to address these matters.
PAT’s reply
Meanwhile, Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT)’s counsel Ali Zafar submitted a written reply on Thursday reminding the top court that it does not have the jurisdiction to resolve the ongoing political unrest.
“The government should shoulder the responsibility of its own actions rather than pass on the responsibility to other institutions,” the party’s response said.
Furthermore, the reply suggests the SC should only facilitate and direct the government to resolve the impasse. According to the party’s response, Parliament made the fatal mistake of repeating the government’s mantra rather than finding a solution to the crisis. As a result, the top court must persuade the relevant stakeholders to reach a decision and not make the decision on its own.
The party’s reply indicates that PAT was optimistic about the government’s initial decision to ask Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Raheel Sharif to resolve the crisis. However, the constant debate over whether the COAS would be facilitating, mediating or arbitrating in the process of finding a solution led to considerable dissatisfaction.
A question of jurisdiction
Awami Muslim League chief Sheikh Rashid also opposed the Supreme Court’s intervention in ongoing political unrest.
He urged the court to exercise judicial restraint otherwise it would open the floodgates of litigation and its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the constitution would become a travesty.
“The parties are undergoing dialogue and both the sides are moving toward an amicable political solution. Therefore, the interference of the top court may not be warranted,” the AML chief said.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 5th, 2014.
Opposition parties requested the Supreme Court (SC) to allow the parliament to settle the ongoing political impasse and not get involved in political affairs.
On Wednesday, the top court had sought suggestions from all parliamentary parties on the most suitable method to address the political crisis in a constitutional manner. Earlier this week, the SC had also offered to play a constructive role in the negotiation process between the protesters and the government.
The bench will hear the case today (Friday) despite political parties being unhappy about it.
Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan – counsel for Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) – submitted a reply requesting the court to refrain from determining the scope of Articles 15, 16 and 17 of the Constitution with respect to the ongoing protests.
According to sources, the reply categorically states that parliament and provincial assemblies should be allowed to address these matters.
PAT’s reply
Meanwhile, Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT)’s counsel Ali Zafar submitted a written reply on Thursday reminding the top court that it does not have the jurisdiction to resolve the ongoing political unrest.
“The government should shoulder the responsibility of its own actions rather than pass on the responsibility to other institutions,” the party’s response said.
Furthermore, the reply suggests the SC should only facilitate and direct the government to resolve the impasse. According to the party’s response, Parliament made the fatal mistake of repeating the government’s mantra rather than finding a solution to the crisis. As a result, the top court must persuade the relevant stakeholders to reach a decision and not make the decision on its own.
The party’s reply indicates that PAT was optimistic about the government’s initial decision to ask Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Raheel Sharif to resolve the crisis. However, the constant debate over whether the COAS would be facilitating, mediating or arbitrating in the process of finding a solution led to considerable dissatisfaction.
A question of jurisdiction
Awami Muslim League chief Sheikh Rashid also opposed the Supreme Court’s intervention in ongoing political unrest.
He urged the court to exercise judicial restraint otherwise it would open the floodgates of litigation and its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the constitution would become a travesty.
“The parties are undergoing dialogue and both the sides are moving toward an amicable political solution. Therefore, the interference of the top court may not be warranted,” the AML chief said.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 5th, 2014.