Who allowed PTI, PAT to use army’s name for their cause?

• SC asks PTI, PAT to explain their case on ‘misrepresenting’ army’s name, seeking resignations under ‘threat of violence’
• PML-N counsel requests court to resolve political crisis under Article 184(3) of Constitution

ISLAMABAD

STAFF REPORT

The approach of protesting parties in asking for parliamentarians’ resignations and using Pakistan Army’s name in their support came under scrutiny Wednesday as Supreme Court has sought explanations from the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) in lieu of Parliament’s apprehensions in this regard.

As a five-judge SC bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Nasirul Mulk began the case hearing, Awami National Party (ANP) and Balochistan National Party (BNP)’s counsel Raza Rabbani accused the protesting parties of misrepresenting army for their cause.

POINTS TO PONDER:

The counsel raised three questions significant to the present political scenario:

1. Can any political party or any other group ask constitutional office bearers to disengage from office under threat of violence or use of force in violation of the Constitution?
2. Can any political leader legitimately involve Pakistan Army in his design to achieve his unconstitutional objectives by attempting to reassure his followers that army by a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will determine the future course of his action?
3. Can a political leader misrepresent the support of Pakistan Army to their cause in public or private communications, thereby compromising the image of a national institution?

APPREHENSIONS ARE STILL ALIVE:

Responding to these questions, the CJP said that despite the issuance of a restraining order directing state functionaries to not take any extra constitutional steps on August 15, apprehensions in this regard were still alive. He also directed the protesting parties to submit a reply to these questions within three days.

Speaking during the hearing, PTI’s counsel Yousaf Khosa clarified that PTI will strongly oppose any extra constitutional steps taken in the present political scenario.

Justice Mian Saqib Nisar told the counsels that protests play a positive role in making people aware of their rights and it is the duty of opposition parties to point out the government’s mistakes. However, protesting parties should not violate the rights of others, he added.

Moreover, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja raised questions over the use of abusive language by PAT and PTI’s leadership against their opponents. “Politics is the name of compromises but the court will give verdicts in view of the Constitution,” he added.

ON MAKING USE OF THE CONSTITUTION:

In the meantime, submitting its response in reply to court’s last week’s order, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) counsel Rafiq Rajwana said that PTI and PAT’s sit-ins at capital’s Constitution Avenue violated articles 4 and 5 of the Constitution.

Rajwana said that although the Constitution allowed freedom of expression, the protests carried out by the PTI and PAT were also in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution. The reply requested the court to resolve the political crisis under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.

The case hearing was adjourned until next week.