Battle of the ToRs

Statesmanship – at a premium

For over six months the government and the opposition failed to reach a consensus on the ToRs. The two finally decided to get their respective drafts passed by the Parliament. An impatient Imran Khan who had petitioned to the SC to disqualify the Prime Minister on the basis of revelations in the Panama Papers announced a lock down of Islamabad without waiting for the Supreme Court decision on his petition. Realising that the PML-N was in a position to get its ToRs endorsed by the NA on account of its numerical strength, Bilawal Bhutto announced that his party would initiate a long march to Islamabad if its four demands were not accepted by December 27.

Finally, the Supreme Court asked the four parties seeking PM’s disqualification as well as the government to send their ToRs to the court and agree in writing to abide by whatever decision was taken by the court. Assurances of the kind given verbally are common in Panchayats and jirgas but are unusual in the case of a court of law. Keeping in view the lack of consensus among political parties some might think this was perhaps the only way out. The apex court also announced that after the receipt of replies from the parties in the case, it would appoint a single judge enquiry commission having the powers of the SC.

The verdict has divided the legal community which is already split in two major groups. A meeting of the PCB has been convened on November 26 is to deliberate on whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to fix the ToRs. Meanwhile prominent legal expert Barrister Zafarullah has filed a petition in the SC questioning the apex court’s authority to appoint an enquiry commission or formulate ToRs which he maintains come under the purview of Parliament. Unless politicians show mutual accommodation and learn to run Parliament with consensus they would be creating conditions for the intervention of offstage players. Anyone who thinks that he would benefit from this is living a paradise of his own.