Anathema to democracy
Likening the Sharifs to the Sicilian clan by Justice Azmat Saeed — one of the three members of the special bench of the apex court monitoring the JIT investigating the prime minister and his family over sources of funding of their Mayfair property — was perhaps the last straw
Thursday was a ‘bad hair day’ for the beleaguered prime minister. As if his legal troubles — him and his sons in the dock over Panamagate — were not enough he had to face the damaging fallout from ruling party loyalist NehalHashmi threatening the judiciary.
Politically also, things did not go quite his way on the fateful day. The joint session of parliament, being addressed by President Mamnoon Hussain, was marred with the opposition benches chanting, “Go Nawaz Go” slogans before they walked out en masse protesting at the high handed attitude of the treasury benches.
Likening the Sharifs to the Sicilian clan by Justice Azmat Saeed — one of the three members of the special bench of the apex court monitoring the JIT investigating the prime minister and his family over sources of funding of their Mayfair property — was perhaps the last straw.
This was not the first time that the Supreme Court hearing the Panamagate case had accused Nawaz Sharif of behaving like a mafia don. Justice Asif Saeed Khosa prefacing his minority judgment had quoted Mario Puzo’s novel The Godfather, obliquely likening Sharif to a mafia don.
Apparently, the Supreme Court refused to buy the official explanation that NehalHashmi, in his diatribe against the judiciary, acted like a lone wolf. That is why the bench has formally hauled him up in contempt.
Justice Azmat Saeed, reacting angrily to the erring senator’s abrasive remarks, has accused the government of employing mafia-like tactics by threatening the judges’ families. If there was any doubt in any mind he removed it by directly addressing the AG (advocate general) Ashter Ausaf Ali of being the representative of the ‘Sicilian mafia’.
The government, responding angrily to the judiciary’s outburst, asserted that they had violated their code of conduct and brought Pakistan into disrepute. Undoubtedly, the executive and the judiciary are on a collision course.
Senator Aitzaz Ahsan, a vociferous critic of the Sharifs, has rightly pointed out that the judges should show self-restraint no matter how serious the provocation. According to him Justice Azmat Saeed should have refrained from making the mafia remarks as such outbursts unnecessarily vitiate the atmosphere.
Interestingly Aitzaz, a prominent jurist, thinks that the Sharifs are indeed a mafia. However, he has reiterated the oft-repeated maxim that judges should only speak through their judgments. Especially the bench monitoring the JIT should be doubly careful in its remarks, lest it casts doubts about its impartiality.
Undoubtedly there is a huge burden on the shoulders of the higher judiciary. Not only is the fate of Nawaz Sharif in its hands, the recalcitrant opposition leader Imran Khan has his own share of legal troubles.
After the exit of General Raheel Sharif and the Dawngate issue virtually settled those who pray 24/7 for the unconstitutional exit of elected governments are somewhat disappointed that all is quiet on the civilian-khaki front.
They are looking towards the judiciary for washing their dirty linen. But the judges are in no mood to lend their shoulders to them. They are doing their mandated job interpreting the law and the constitution to the best of their abilities.
Of course the likes of NehalHashmi, using threats and intimidation, should be dealt with severely. Probably Sharif, as he claims, did not put him up to it. It also correct that the ruling party, by suspending the erring senator’s membership and the prime minister forcing him to resign his senate seat, acted promptly against him.
Nonetheless, he cannot absolve himself of the blame of creating a blemishedpolitical atmosphere. The opposition, buttressed by the electronic media, is also spewing venom. Various government spokespersons on the other hand, abetted by some ministers, unashamedly target the opposition.
The ruling party’s defence being that it has to respond to vicious attacks of the opposition. Truly the Khan and his party stalwarts have lowered the level of debate by their not so infrequent outbursts.
However, those in power should exercise more restraint. Unfortunately, the media cell headed by the heir apparent Maryam Nawaz Sharif has given permanence to this unsavoury practice.
So far as the judiciary is concerned, during the tenure of former CJP Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry the judges started speaking through their remarks. Their pronouncements were promptly amplified on the electronic media through the ubiquitous tickers. This trend created the impression that the judges were literally playing to the (press) gallery.
Thankfully the pendulum has somewhat swung back to the middle. The judiciary, from being pliant in the pre-Iftikhar period to being hyper proactive under him, is now trying to strike a balance.
It is almost surreal to witness the first family being hauled up in courts and grilled like ordinary criminals. The judiciary through its sheer independence has been able to create an ethos where middle level government servants belonging to investigating agencies and financial institutions are able to grill the rulers without fear of losing their jobs.
This is a first in Pakistan where rulers in the past could literally get away with murder. All credit to democracy and democratic institutions.
Gone are the days when the Supreme Court building could be stormed through ruling party’s goons or judges manipulated through intimidation and bribery. Similarly the military leadership, in cahoots with a pliant president armed with article 58 2(B), could oust elected prime ministers from a little help from the higher judiciary.
That is why democratic institutions must function within their mandated domains. Perhaps all stakeholders should practice self-restraint — the biggest trait for democracy to function.
Unfortunately, emotional outbursts have become the norm rather than the exception. The parliamentary opposition continuing its boycott is on the rampage. No serious attempt has been made by the ruling party stalwarts to persuade the opposition to end its boycott.
Their demand that the official media should not be blacking out the opposition is fairly reasonable. Similarly, the government being blackmailed by Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Mehmood Khan Achakzai should not have scuttled the amendment to bring FATA (federally administrated tribal areas) in the mainstream during the budget session.
The unsavoury practice adopted by government spokespersons questioning the impartiality of the JIT is tantamount to indirectly hitting at the Supreme Court bench that had mandated the investigating team in the first place and to whom it reports.
After all the three judges on the special bench are the same persons who did not disqualify the prime minister out rightly while hearing the Panamagate case. Had they gone along with the opinion of the two minority judges Sharif would have ceased to be prime minister.