Politics all around

Especially where it shouldn’t be…

It’s politics all around these days; all the mainstream parties are doing their best to take advantage of the restiveness prevalent in the country. PPP has played its cards well and even after the conviction of its prime minister, it stands firm and completely impervious to the wrath of its opponents. As they say, Piety has no relevance to Politics and Power and PPP’s decision to deprecate the demand of resignation on moral grounds is in line with that. One wonders if this is opportunism or leverage. I deem it to be leverage because the hawks feel that politics and opportunism are not confined to political parties and their sponsors anymore. They are being overtly exhibited and practiced in the institutions which should be apolitical.

The reference is clear and it speaks for itself. It’s about the country’s highest constitutional court. The Supreme Court pledges to dispense justice with equality to everyone and promises to be impartial and independent at all times but the perception is quite to the contrary. Even after giving historic orders in the cases like Rental Power Plants, Hajj scam and NICL, the institution does not stand vindicated. Their lordships have fallen prey to populism in a number of cases. The NRO is one good example of this. Being a student of law, I fully support the judgment in NRO case but I humbly disagree with the way the entire matter was handled by the august court. There was no need to start suo moto proceedings in the form of NRO Implementations case. The responsibility of implementation was with the executive and the executive would have been held accountable the way it is being held now. The judicial activism of our lordships has cost them their impartiality. The defiant executive has reasons to believe that this judiciary is targeting PPP and its leadership. Some may say this is incorrect and but the perception is right there and well-placed.

Many things feed into giving credence to this perception. For instance, the petition (Not a Stay Order) by Mr Shahid Orakzai which is still pending with the Supreme Court and has not been taken up in years even after leave was granted by the honourable court. I showcased the SC’s website in our show (Aapas Ki Baat) last year to demonstrate that the case been conveniently left aside for months. This case is against the former PML(N) president and the incumbent Chief Minister Punjab’s dual membership issue. If taken up, the result could be devastating for Mr Shahbaz Sharif as it hinges upon a clearly written Article 223 (4) of the Constitution. I leave it for the prudent minds to make of this what they will.

It dismays many when the honourable institution of SC does not abide by the principles it has set for all of us to follow. The judgment to denounce extensions and contractual appointments of the government employees was hailed at all levels but it was an unpleasant surprise to witness the unwarranted and repeated extensions awarded to the honourable registrar of the Supreme Court. I repeat what the honourable judges had said: “Isn’t there any competent officer in the country to fill the important posts?”

While a defiant executive disturbs many, a populist judicature does even more so. The executive is elected through a political process and it has its own vested interests. But the judiciary has to think and act beyond that. It was very unfortunate when the CJ commented on the issue of availability of judges for the PM’s review petition while addressing the bar in Sibbi. The question was not directly asked of him and there was no need to address this issue on that forum. Adding more to the controversy, the honourable Lordship has decided to appoint acting and ad hoc judges to hear the prime minister’s appeal. Yes, it is not unconstitutional to do so but the spirit of Article 181 and 182 have been discussed at length in the Al-Jehad Trust Case which clearly deprecates the idea of appointing ad hoc judges when there is a vacancy for permanent judge of Supreme Court. The vacancy for a permanent judge has to be filled. The Pakisan Bar Council, High Court Bar Associations and the Supreme Court Bar Associations have once again denounced the practice of appointing favoured ad hoc judges.

The contention behind the above stated arguments is that the institutions like the Supreme Court should not only be impartial but also be seen to be impartial. They should disseminate the perception that it does justice to all and at every level. Lord Denning had once said that “Justice must be rooted in confidence: and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: ‘The judge was biased’.” (Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v. Lannon [I9691 1 Q.B. 577)

The writer hosts a prime time talk show. He can be contacted at [email protected]