The ECP, the SC and the PTI

Somersaults, U-Turns and pressure tactics

Reportedly, Imran Khan has disowned the unconditional apology tendered by his lawyer for the contemptuous remarks in the review application demanding a reconsideration of ECP order of December 1 that directed PTI to produce the financial documents in regards to foreign funding of the party. The ECP had taken a strong exception to the unsavoury remarks in the review application which was duly signed by the Chairman PTI Imran Khan, which clearly meant that the derogatory remarks against the constitutional body were not made inadvertently but reflected a consciously deliberated stance on the issue. The lawyer, while apologising, also promised to submit the relevant records in the next hearing on 23 January, but neither the documents nor any PTI’s lawyer made any appearance.

Imran Khan has not only disowned the apology but has also refused to comply with the orders of the ECP in regards to submission of the demanded documents. The Chief Election commissioner Justice (Retd) Sardar Muhammad Raza remarked that Imran was adamant about his behaviour as he was not ready to own the apology submitted by his counsel. It is really a bizarre situation. The question is how could the lawyer tender the apology without consulting the PTI Chairman? In the legal cases, whatever submissions the counsel of the respondent or the plaintiff makes in the court, are taken as authentic views of the party represented by the respective lawyers. Disowning the apology tendered by the lawyer and terming it as his personal action is another somersault by Imran Khan – by now, a familiar trait of his politics.

In view of non-attendance of the hearing by PTI lawyers and the failure of the party to submit record of the financial transactions pertaining to foreign funding, which is tantamount to deliberate defiance of the ECP orders, Mr. Akbar S Babar who originally submitted the petition against PT has now submitted a contempt petition before the ECP. The ECP, as observed by the Chief Election Commissioner, would send a notice to Imran Khan to explain his position.

It is indeed regrettable to note that Imran Khan continues to denigrate and ridicule the constitutional bodies like the ECP with disdain. After the 2013 General Elections he embarked on a relentless tirade against the former ECP accusing it of being a party to the systematic rigging and even hurled personal flak at the ECP members. His stubbornness was amply demonstrated when even after his claim of rigging was nullified by the Judicial Commission, he still had to audacity to take a swipe at the Election Commission. He continues in the same vein against the reconstituted ECP with the consensus of all the political parties through a constitutional amendment. His entire politics has revolved around denigrating state institutions, using pressure tactics to get a verdict of his own choice and taking somersaults on well taken positions and even fabricating allegations against the adversaries, which has invariably proved counter-productive.

He even does not have any qualms about making undesirable remarks against the apex court – with the explicit purpose to pressurise the judges – as has transpired during the hearing of Panama Leaks Case. When the SC adjourned the case in December 2016 due to the retirement of the former Chief justice, it also required the formation of a new bench. Khan showed his disgust by saying that the case should have been decided by the existing bench. It is pertinent to point out that when the PTI and others approached the SC in the Panama case, they had shown complete faith and confidence in the apex court and vowed to accept whatever verdict was delivered. But later the PTI Chairman took a somersault and asserted that if the PTI did not get justice from the SC it would again take to the streets. That not only reflected no-confidence in the court but also a clear cut ploy to put pressure on it to have the verdict in his favour. Though the PTI has not gone for the street agitation as yet but it is already holding public rallies in different cities of the country where Imran Khan burns witches with relish and declares his verdict on the Panama case referring to the remarks of the judges during the hearing. That is absolutely unwarranted as the matter is sub judice. It is not to be decided by the politicians on the streets or by the media but by the court according to the law of the land. As against PTI’s loose-cannon behaviour, the PML-N government continues to repose confidence in the SC notwithstanding its matching response to PTI’s antics. Unfortunately due to the irresponsible behaviour of the parties to the case and the media the Panama Leaks has become highly politicised.

It was probably in the backdrop of the prevailing scenario that responding to the request of the JI Counsel for banning TV talks shows and discussion on Panama case outside court, Justice Khosa remarked that a lot had been done and now everyone should keep his commentary with him and wait for the judgment of the court. Responding to the observation of the JI lawyer that the questions asked in the previous hearing gave the impression that the court had already made up its mind, Justice Khosa reiterated that questions were not a ruling. They were asked for clarity.

The court has ostensibly expressed its disapproval of the attempts by the politicians and the media to use the remarks of the judges to deduce interpretations of their own choice and presenting them as considered views of the court. The advice of the court to keep their views to themselves and wait for the verdict of the court also in a way forbids the continuation of the theatrical enactments by politicians and the media. Honestly speaking, the judges of the apex court have also contributed their bit to the prevailing scenario in regards to the Panama case. They are also in breach of the code of conduct for judges issued by the Supreme Judiciary Council which prohibits them to refrain from making remarks that can be exploited by the parties concerned and only speak through their verdicts. They should have at the outset barred the media and the politicians to comment on the proceedings of the Panama case. What has happened has happened. It was in the fitness of thing that the court now clearly issued orders restricting the media and politicians from making comments on the court proceedings to end the ordeal of the masses, who are invariably treated to an unwelcome spectacle of every Tom, Harry and Dick giving his bizarre comments every evening, to confuse the public