Both must avoid it
The Supreme Court and the newly elected federal and provincial governments seem to be heading towards confrontation. In June the federal government was reprimanded over the GST hike prior to the approval of the budget by parliament, in July over the appointment of a court-martialed air force officer who was also a dual nationality holder as PM’s aviation advisor, in August over delay in the appointment of the NAB chief and in September over the ordering of hike in power rates by the federal ministry of power rather than NEPRA which alone has the authority to fix the tariff. Now comes the disagreement on the local government elections.
It goes to the discredit of the elected governments at the federal and provincial levels that they are in no mood to hold the local government elections despite the promise to conduct them within 90 days of forming the government. The PML-N and the PPP had agreed to this in the Charter of Democracy (CoD). The PTI chief Imran Khan had made the promise before the commencement of the election campaign. A perception has been created that the elected governments do not want to devolve political, administrative and economic power to the grassroots as required under the constitution. After 1998 the military authorities have not held elections in the cantonment areas. Like politicians they too are unhappy to part with the authority and the control over development funds. Thus despite commitments made to the SC to hold elections at specified dates these have been violated. The neglect has led the apex court to conclude that a constitutional requirement is being consciously violated by the federal and the provincial governments.
The Supreme Court has rejected the justifications for delay. It has now ordered to hold fresh elections or revive the former local bodies. On Friday, the apex court reminded the attorney general that a former prime minister was sent home for ignoring the court’s orders. Further that a failure to implement the constitutional provisions could lead the court to ask if the government still had the authority to rule. The remarks must not be taken lightly. Equally significant is the contradiction by CJ Sindh High Court of what the prime minister said about a court in Sindh, which according to the latter had wrongly recorded a confessional statement by a terrorist for being under pressure. Nothing of the sort had happened, the CJ maintained. There is a need on both sides to resolve the issues urgently to avoid a confrontation.
