It is the first time in the history of Pakistan that a civilian government has been toppled by the Supreme Court’s short order on the petitions of PML(N) and PTI leaders challenging the May 24th ruling of the Speaker of National Assembly on the issue of PM Yousaf Raza Gilian’s conviction in the contempt of court case. The court observed that the speaker had no authority to find faults in the apex court’s judgement and should have sent the disqualification reference to the Election Commission of Pakistan within 30 days. The court’s verdict has raised many questions:
Were all the decisions and acts of the former PM between 26 April to 19 June without lawful authority, including the passing of the budget?
What will happen if the new PM also refuses to write the letter to Swiss authorities against the President?
Why was the court interested in deciding a case with political repercussions on a fast track basis by having day to day proceedings despite objection from the Attorney General of Pakistan and defence counsel?
Why has the power of disqualification of NA members, representing the will of the people, been claimed by a judicial institution?
What if the PPP gains two-third majority to amend the constitution and removes Article 63a and also bars the Supreme Court’s ability to use suo motu?
Why is the SC not dealing with petitions that are pending for decades such as Asgher Khan’s petition relating to intelligence agencies paying money to the politicians?
Why are the present judges keener on taking up corruption cases related to the PPP government as opposed to the PML(N)?
Why are the SC and the lower courts not using lie detector machines to expedite the cases?
The confrontation between the judiciary and the executive is not in country’s interest. The judiciary must project that it is independent and unbiased. Why is the apex court playing the role of both the executive and the legislature?
Why did the seven-member bench that gave the verdict on 26 April not clearly order the disqualification of the PM? Why was the matter sent to the Speaker of the NA if her decision was to be overruled?
S T HUSSAIN
Lahore
