Sending the premier home packing like Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani will create much bigger problems and the danger of the democratic system being wounded up cannot be ruled out as an outcome.
_______________________________________________________________
The air of confrontation between the government and the judiciary
refuses to go away. The Supreme Court’s (SC’s) notice to Prime Minister
(PM) Raja Pervez Ashraf to appear on Augusta 27 to show cause why he
should not be proceeded against for contempt of court like his
predecessor Yousaf Raza Gilani has once again put the cat among the
pigeons. The government’s response is yet to be clearly known, despite a
statement in some sections of the press by Information Minister Qamar
Zaman Kaira that a decision whether the PM should present himself before
the court or not will only be taken after consultations. At the last
hearing of the NRO implementation case on Wednesday, August 8, the hope
that the court too now sought some ‘middle way’ to end the standoff
between the executive and the judiciary, as expressed in Justice Asif
Saeed Khosa’s advice to the Attorney General (AG) Irfan Qadir to play a
mediatory role, dissipated amidst the court’s declaration that it cannot
move an inch from its December 19, 2009 NRO judgement. Two reasons for
this reversal to a more rigid position have been enumerated by the
court. One, a five-member bench hearing the NRO implementation case
cannot revisit, let alone revise, the 17-member bench original NRO
decision of 2009. Two, the court’s perception was that PM Raja Pervez
Ashraf is resorting to delaying tactics in trying to avoid
implementation of the court’s verdict on the letter to the Swiss
authorities. The latter perception informs the court’s seemingly harsh
act of issuing another contempt of court notice to another PM. Reports
also state that Law Minister Farooq Naek’s August 7 television
interview, in which he had said that the government was contemplating
moving review petitions against the NRO judgement as well as the
striking down of the Contempt Act, became a further basis for the
court’s relatively harsh tone. Those two review petitions have now been
moved. Despite this setback to attempts to find a middle way to resolve
the standoff, the court still found it convenient to ask the AG to
continue his efforts for finding a compromise solution, failing which,
the court would proceed further. The AG tried to argue that the court
should exercise restraint, but the bench was having none of it, arguing
that it has shown restraint but its hand had been forced by
non-compliance with its verdicts.
The stalemate was allowed to aggravate when the Pakistan People’s Party
on Tuesday decided it would not write a letter to Swiss authorities for
reopening cases against President Asif Zardari and would ‘resist’
actions by the Supreme Court within bounds of the Constitution. This
adventurism may cost the government dearly. However, the attorney
general said that there was no need to plead for immunity as it was
“given by the Constitution itself”. He hoped that the court would
exercise restraint. This also brings to reference of the debate as to
which state institution is more powerful, Parliament or the judiciary.
While the prerogative of the superior judiciary to strike down a law
enacted by Parliament in conflict with the Constitution cannot be put to
question, the authority of Parliament to legislate is above doubt. The
SC struck down the 2012 Contempt of Court Act the other day on the basis
that it flouted a number of constitutional provisions. But where the
dispute arose was the SC decided to restore the Contempt of Court
Ordinance, 2003. Some circles in the legal fraternity accepted the SC
prerogative of declaring a law null and void, they plead that the apex
court, instead of restoring a particular law, should have left the
legislation of a new law on contempt of court on Parliament.
The people of Pakistan, the ultimate master of the country’s destiny are
genuinely caught in a fear that the impasse may not cost more heavily
that the nation cannot afford at this critical time of history. Whereas
the unwarranted controversy over which state institution is superior and
which subordinate has been created by hawks in media, particularly the
electronic media, the situation obtaining at present is fraught with
danger in more than one way. That is why the saner lot of the people
desires that all issues are resolved without harming the democratic
system. Hopefully all concerned understand the sensitivity of the
conditions in Pakistan.
________________________________________________________
Thank You For Reading
کوئی تبصرے نہیں:
ایک تبصرہ شائع کریں