There was much frustration and disappointment for all those who were looking towards the Supreme Court to pack up Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani’s government home on the issue of contempt of court notice for non-implementation of the decision on National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO).
At least for the time being, the political crises, that unfortunately we in Pakistan are always exposed to, are delayed, but not permanently averted. The NRO actually was a trap, a sugarcoated pill with poisonous effects. Wherever the NRO poison will travel, in various state institutions, it will hit them hard. One may not accept this reality but this is what is happening at the moment.
The prime minister under the contempt of court notice appeared before the seven-member Supreme Court bench and explained his position to the honourable judges that he had all the respect and regard for one of the most important organ of the state, the judiciary. The prime minister’s counsel, barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, told the court that since President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, as head of the state enjoys immunity under the article 248 of the constitution, the government could not write any letter to the Swiss authorities about the Swiss cases. The court asked Aitzaz Ahsan to appear on February 1 and argue on the immunity issue. So, now immunity issue of president will be decided “first” and then will come the “contempt”.
This is what many opposition political parties, politicians, analysts, legal experts, and even the court itself have been saying that even if the president enjoys immunity under the constitution, it has to be sought from the court. But the government and PPP’s senior members are of the opinion that since immunity to president is very much written in black and white in the constitution, there was no need for any further interpretation or definition. Anyhow, all those who wanted to bring the immunity issue to the court have finally succeeded and that is a problem now.
Much has been written about the so-called NRO that a sin committed by former President General (retd) Pervez Musharraf just to prolong his stay in the presidency. It was a manifestation of the “Doctrine of Necessity” and a reflection of the fragility of the political system in this country. Unfortunately, none of our state institutions demonstrated sincerity to cure the sick tree of our political system. Many are confused as to in whose benefit the whole drama is being staged? To them the debate or struggle among various institutions or individual regarding NRO or Memogate is nothing more than a chance at grabbing more and more power.
The man whose is representing the PM in the contempt of court notice and now presidential immunity issue is under severe attack from left, right and the centre. Lawyers outside the Supreme Court building shouted against Aitzaz Ahsan calling him a “friend of dacoit.” Many politicians, legal experts, retired judges, analysts and TV anchors, most among them his close friends, used derogatory language against him. They blamed him he supported the idea of writing a letter to the Swiss authorities earlier, but has changed his opinion and is talking about the presidential immunity now.
We are not going into what Aitzaz Ahsan said earlier and what he is saying today. The issue is whether it’s right to launch a personal attack on somebody’s professional honesty and character only on this plea that he has changed his opinion on an issue. I really appreciate Saad Rafeeq, MNA of PML(N), who in one of the TV talk shows on Thursday said that he regarded Aitzaz Ahsan for playing a very vital role in lawyers movement. But the rest of the media criticised Aitzaz Ahsan. If we believe in the spirit of professionalism, then he is a lawyer representing a client like many others do everyday. We should not behave in a crazy manner. If we have full confidence in the court, which ultimately is going to decide the immunity issue, then why is there a need for personal attacks on a counsel?
Why have we forgotten that he is the same man who was in the driving seat for the restoration of an independent judiciary? He is the same man who annoyed the leadership of his party for the sake of supremacy of the rule of law and constitution. So much so that even his party CEC membership was cancelled at one point because of his stand for the independent judiciary. He is not challenging the judiciary rather appearing before the same institution in an important matter related to the political stability of the country. He is the same man whose party is in power but he did not get any benefit. If he has been in the present parliament, he could have been a potential candidate for the slot of prime minister.
We should take a step back and demonstrate maturity, decency and tolerance. There is no second opinion that everybody has a right to debate and criticise. The language used on different TV channels by participants, and in some cases the anchors, was unfortunately against the norms of decency. I wish to say that political commentators and intellectuals should differentiate between “Aitzaz Ahsan” as an individual, politician and a legal expert. After all, he, like all of us, is a human being and should be treated as one.
The writer hosts a primetime talk show on a TV channel and can be contacted via email: [email protected]
