ICJ decision on Jadhav met with criticism, shock across Pakistan

• PTI blames PM Nawaz for ICJ stay on Jadhav execution
• Sherry Rehman says Kulbhushan Jadhav case was mishandled

The International Court of Justice has issued an order staying the execution of Indian spy Kulbushan Jadhav by Pakistan, a decision which has caused shock and disappointment in Pakistan.

Earlier, Pakistani analysts were confident that the ICJ does not have jurisdiction to stay Jadhav’s execution; however, today observers have said the jurisdiction argument was “weak” and “damaging”.

OPPOSITION’s REACTION

Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader Sherry Rehman said, “We based our case on jurisdiction and it proved weak. More arguments should have been made regarding espionage.”

She added that Pakistan did not utilise the option available to it under Article 31 of Statute which allows a party to nominate an individual as a judge.

“You mishandled the case. First, you failed to file your response till May 15 and then you decide to challenge the jurisdiction of the ICJ,” she said. The PPP leader said that lawyer Pakistan chose to contest the case lacked international experience.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) issued a statement blaming Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for the ‘unfavourable’ outcome and asked him to clear his position in parliament.

Raising suspicions over the recent meeting of Indian business tycoon Sajjan Jindal with PM Nawaz, PTI Central Information Secretary Shafqat Mehmood made a demand for the premier to disclose all details of his secret meetings with Jindal, who is known to be a friend of Indian PM Narendra Modi.

In the statement, the PTI has raised a series of questions, seeking an explanation from the incumbent prime minister on the Indian response on the Jadhav issue.

The PTI official asked why the government assigned the task to a lawyer who has never argued a case independently before the International Court of Justice and what compelled his government to send a first-year associate from the Attorney General’s office instead of AG himself. Seeking a reply on why the government did not submit a written defence before May 15, Shafqat Mehmood said, “Today’s decision is a clear outcome of the rendezvous of Nawaz Sharif and his Indian friend Jindal,” adding, “The impression is gaining ground that the government deliberately adopted an irresolute and fragile strategy in this matter.”

PTI’s senior leader Dr Shireen Mazari also hit hard at the PML-N government, claiming she had already known what the outcome of the today’s judgement would be.

“As I had predicted in my earlier tweets the ICJ decision was a foregone conclusion. We did not have to go to ICJ to begin with but we did,” she said in a tweet.

She added, “We did not explain our appeal and review system to show there was no urgency – we simply said he would be executed in August 2017!”

PTI leader Asad Umar also lashed out at the federal government.

In a series of tweets after the ICJ’s decision, Asad Umar alleged that the ICJ’s decision was an outcome of a recent meeting between PM Nawaz and Indian steel tycoon Sajjan Jindal in Murree.

“I guess everyone now knows what one of the things which were discussed between Nawaz Sharif and his dear friend Sajjan Jindal was,” he said.

Umar regretted Pakistan chose to send a junior lawyer, who was totally unprepared to defend the case. “Pakistan sends a junior lawyer, totally unprepared to defend our case so surprise we don’t get the decision we want,” he tweeted.

Both PTI and PPP converged on seeking a reply from Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif about the case and also, organising a National Security Committee (NSC) meeting.

‘PAKISTAN WAS GROSSLY UNPREPARED’

In other reactions, Lawyer Feisal Naqvi said the ultimate question is about consular access.

“The question is not whether he should be hung the questions are different. The question is; whether he can get consular access,” Naqvi said.

“It is normal that ICJ has said that we feel we might have jurisdiction, so they have asked for a stay on execution. It is their impression that they have jurisdiction. They aren’t final about it. It happens quite often that the court first orders a stay, then examines the situation more closely before giving a verdict,” he added.

Barrister Dr Farogh A Nasim said Pakistan should not have conceded to ICJ’s jurisdiction.

“India did not give consent to the Kashmir issue going to ICJ, then why did Pakistan give consent to the Jadhav case?”

He said that 17 years ago when Pakistan filed a case, ICJ said we do not have jurisdiction. “Today, ICJ did not accept that decision.”

Justice (r) Shaiq Usmani told a private news channel the decision is alarming because “ICJ does not have jurisdiction”.

“It’s Pakistan’s mistake to have appeared there. They shouldn’t have attended. They have shot themselves in the foot,” he added.

The retired justice says the case will continue in Pakistan. “Until the ICJ gives its verdict, the case will go on in Pakistan. But he cannot be executed until the stay order is there. The proceedings will continue here.”

He added that the 40 days of appeal, as permitted by the Field General Court Martial (FGCM) which convicted and sentenced the Indian spy, are over.

“I think 40 days are over and the time to appeal is over. But if they want they can accept the time. The FGCM court can extend the time if they want,” he maintained.

London-based Barrister Rashid Aslam says Pakistan was ill-prepared and did not utilise the 90 minutes it had to make its argument.

He added: “Pakistan had the right to set up a judge there but we didn’t do that. I think Pakistan was grossly unprepared. It might be that we didn’t have enough time…”

Analyst Zahid Hussain said the ICJ is not binding legally but morally.

“Usually, verdicts of ICJ are not binding but according to international laws, possess moral responsibility.”

He added that it cannot be said that the verdict is in India’s favour but it can be said that the court has just ordered to overturn the implementation of execution.

Former Attorney General Irfan Qadir said he was shocked by the decision. “I think this decision is a violation of the principle of natural justice. I am shocked as to why Pakistan went there and presented their position and gave it in such a rush,” he said.