Even though the rabble rouse emanating from ousted Prime-Minister Nawaz Sharif’s road rally, has thus far been not as enthusiastic as anticipated , it would be foolhardy for political rivals to dismiss it off as a damp squib. Hence Imran Khan is being mocked at by erudite Pakistani politicians for calling the Nawaz Sharif road rally “ corruption bachao rally “
My advice to Imran Khan is to imbibe the spirit of the adage “ people living in glass houses do not throw stones at others “ Writing in Friday Times of Aug 4, 2017 the veteran journalist Najam Sethi states “ Given the logic of the present situation and legal reservations Imran Khan and Jahangir Tareen too cannot escape the same fate ( same fate like Nawaz Sharif ) there are similar holes in their money trails. Indeed if Asif Ali Zardari is investigated, he too will have a hard time surviving the wrath of this sort of law. “
“The consensus in expert and independent circles is two fold and clear: Nawaz Sharif has been stripped of the prime-ministership on troublingly narrow legal grounds and the judgement has the undesirable potential to upend the democratic process in the country. In the circumstances Chief Justice Saqib Nisar ought to consider , following an appropriate petition convening full court to review the five member bench’s final judgement in the Panama Papers case. “ This editorial in Dawn is very significant for two reasons : firstly it speaks of “ troublingly narrow legal grounds “ on which Sharif’s ouster has been done. Secondly, it demands a full bench Supreme Court Review of what some legal experts term as “miscarriage of justice.”
The court verdict concluded that the ousted prime-minister was not honest in terms of Section 99 ( 2 ) ( f) of Representation of People’s Act ( ROPA ) and Article 62 ( 1) ( f) of Pakistan’s Constitution and was neither sadiq (truthful and honest ) nor ameen ( trustworthy)
How ironic that one judge namely Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, who had displayed no qualms in deriding Respondent no 1 i.e. Nawaz Sharif and had not refrained from keeping his anti-Nawaz Sharif biases concealed ( even going to the extent of citing derogatory references from Godfather ) – happened to be the very judge , who in 2014 had described the terms sadiq and ameen as obscure and impracticable in the case which was petitioned by Ishaq Khan Khakwani. If indeed, the precise definition of those terms was obscure and impracticable, how did they get judicially applicable only for the ousted prime-minister.
Former Railway Minister Khwaja Saad Rafiq puts a poser “ were the judges who had taken oath under the PCO sadiq and ameen “
Hamid Mir in an article in Dawn says “ is accountability for politicians only. The law is equal for all politicians in the country but not for military dictators, following this development pressure will mount on the judiciary to proceed against former dictator Pervez Musharraf. The latter will have to appear before the judiciary, otherwise the current JIT and courts will be mocked in future. “
Even though it happened many years back that Pervez Musharraf rode roughshod over all democratic institutions and earned the wrath of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry by sacking him and installing in his place his own judicial “yes men” the people of Pakistan have not forgiven him till this day.
It has been quite obvious to analysts, residents of Punjab and a certain section of the intelligentsia that two members of the JIT representing the ISI and Military Intelligence were primarily responsible for the anti-Nawaz verdict.
That PML-N had been a strong votary of transparency and sound democratic practices all through its tenures is manifest by the mere fact that it made no efforts to have Articles 62 and 63 excluded from the Constitution. These Constitutional mandates, much like Article 58 ( 2 ) (b) is vulnerable to being misused to dismiss democratically elected governments as evidenced by the past. Art 58 ( 2) (b) is a guillotine on Parliament’s sovereign authority –since it facilitates the dismissal of governments and therefore, impinges on the sovereign authority of parliament.
Field Marshal Ayub Khan replaced parliamentary democracy with the presidential system under the 1962 Constitution. After this colossal damage, Gen Ayub Khan insisted on procedures to subvert parliamentary authority with veto powers, later Gen Yahya Khan continued with the same system during the 1970’s.
Gen Zia ul Haq, despite efforts on his part, was unable to abrogate the 1973 Constitution, but usurped through his “presidential prerogatives the powers of parliament by inserting Art 58 ( 2 ) (b). Less than ten years after Zia’s death, the democratically elected government led by Nawaz Sharif ( in his second term as prime-minister ) had this Article removed , but Gen Pervez Musharraf had the same reinstated vide the 17th Constitutional Amendment.
17th Constitutional Amendment
The 17th Constitutional Amendment was passed in 2003, after over a year of political wrangling between the pro and anti-Musharraf camps. It gave the latter power to dissolve the National Assembly and sack a government.
The desirability / or, undesirability of Art 58 (2) (b) was one area on which even rival parties like the PPP and PML-N were of the same view, that this Article hampers democracy, it is for the above reason they united to have it removed through their Charter of Democracy.
Imran Khan led PTI and PPP are rejoicing at the verdict and the latter is wooing PTI to jointly work out an anti-PML-N strategy. But Imran Khan needs a lot of explaining to the judiciary and the electorate at large.
Effects on Indo-Pak ties:
Rawalpindi will become even more powerful since Shahbaz Sharif finds much greater favour with the military. Besides the military was always suspect of Nawaz Sharif’s softer stance vis a vis India. Even the forthcoming general elections regardless of the party which comes in government, the Generals will continue to have a field day. As such, I for one don’t see any perceptible improvement in the New Delhi –Islamabad equation.
Please wait...
