Treading a fine line
While Civil Contempt tends to arise from the flouting of orders or directions of the court, Judicial Contempt most aptly caters to the kind of situation that has arisen because of comments made by disqualified ex-PM Nawaz Sharif
According to constitution of Pakistan Article 204 (2) states that a Court shall have power to punish any person who—
(a) abuses, interferes with or obstructs the process of the Court in any way or disobeys any order of the Court ;
(b) scandalises the Court or otherwise does anything which tends to bring the Court or a Judge of the Court into hatred, ridicule or contempt;
(c) does anything which tends to prejudice the determination of a matter pending before the Court; or
(d) does any other thing which, by law, constitutes contempt of the Court.
While addressing the huge crowd which was present at Jhelum to welcome him when his caravan reached the city on 10 August, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said, “My government is gone now. Five judges sent me packing in one minute despite the votes of millions of people. Is this not an insult to the millions who voted for me?”
“Five ‘respectable’ judges, with one stroke of the pen, sent your prime minister packing. Can you bear this insult?”
“And for what [was I deposed]? Was I implicated in any corruption? Even those judges know that I was not involved in any corruption.”
“You should ask why they removed your leader,” he added. “This country and the people of Jhelum should ask why they did this.”
“These hands are clean! My heart is clean and full of love for this country!” Nawaz Sharif told his followers. “Why did you remove me? Why? I want to ask you: why did you depose me when I am not corrupt?”
“For 70 years, no prime minister has been allowed to complete his tenure. This is not an insult of your prime ministers, but of the 200 million people of Pakistan. You vote a prime ministers into power, and some dictator and some judge comes along and rips up your ballot paper and hands it back to you.”
“Are you okay with being insulted like this? Tell me, are you okay with this?” he asked the crowd, to loud responses of “No!”.
“You sent me to Islamabad, and now they [the Supreme Court] have sent me back home,” he continued.
“I do not want you to install me as prime minister again. Myself respect is very dear to me. I have no intention of taking power again; but I do want to do something about your future,” he said.
Sharif asked “Is there any law to tackle dictators in this country? They [the dictators] break the constitution and the law and then the judges give them legitimacy. The judges tell them ‘you did well by sending Nawaz Sharif home’,” he alleged.
Talking to DNA, leading Lawyer of Supreme Court of Pakistan, Chaudhry Faisal Hussain, said that what Nawaz said throughout his GT Road rally is not contempt in fact it is ‘Verbal Assault’.
“He ridiculed judges and said that they sent him packing through some sort of conspiracy and he (Nawaz) did no corruption which is contrary to the facts,” said Faisal.
He added he was shocked why so much leniency was shown towards Nawaz Sharif and his aides who were openly ridiculing the judiciary by saying they were part of conspiracy against him but didn’t provide any relevant proof.
However, while talking to DNA about the content of Nawaz Sharif’s speeches delivered throughout his GT road rally, lawyer and political analyst Yasser Latif Hamdani said in his opinion Nawaz Sharif did not commit any contempt of court. Contempt of court would have been if he had stayed put and refused to vacate the PM house after the decision.
Criticising a decision of the court is not contempt. It is the right of every citizen to disagree with the court’s decision or judgment. There are no precedents which have punished people for disagreeing with the court, he said.
Yasser added that however there is a thin line between criticism and ridicule. Some of Nawaz Sharif’s statements do come close but do not actually cross that line for example his“paanch muaziz afrad” comment.
Political analyst Wajahat Masood thinks it is difficult to say whether Nawaz Sharif committed contempt of court or not because it depends on the interpretation of the court whether it is intrinsic or extrinsic about this particular issue.
Leading political analyst Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi told DNA that although Nawaz Sharif talked about the judgment and the judges where he strongly critcised them but usually politicians enjoy more freedom to deliver such speeches which are at times ignored by courts. “It is the Supreme Court which would decide whether he committed contempt of court or not,” said Dr Rizvi.
Advocate Ali Ibrahim was of the opinion that the primary legislation concerning contempt is Article 204 of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In furtherance of the said Article, the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 was promulgated. While Civil Contempt tends to arise from the flouting of orders or directions of the court, Judicial Contempt most aptly caters to the kind of situation that has arisen because of comments made by disqualified ex-PM Nawaz Sharif.
He added that as per the Ordinance, scandalisation of the court or personalised comments about a certain judge constitute judicial contempt. Anyone who has access to a TV could testify that the comments made by the ousted premier were not only intended to ridicule and lower the estimation of the judges but also pointed towards a mysterious conspiracy, ostensibly by the judiciary and the army, against NS.
Ali said that the legislation also refers to substantial detriment as a standard for punishing contempt offenders. No person is to be punished for contempt unless the alleged contempt has caused substantial detriment to the administration of justice or scandalises the court or brings the court into hatred and disrepute.
“To say that the speeches made by Nawaz Sharif are prima facie contemptuous would be an understatement. Some commentators have even gone on to say that the said statements were solely intended to affect the legitimacy of the decision of the apex court,” he said.
However, in my opinion, it is highly unlikely that the judges will react to the speeches made by the ruling party. The Supreme Court is more likely to exercise restraint till the discourse is shifted to the looming NAB reference.
He added that even otherwise, as a matter of practicality, initiation of contempt proceedings will provide the ruling party another opportunity to ridicule the judiciary right outside the Supreme Court as the proceedings continue. Why would the Supreme Court involve itself in an unfair war of words?
