- Four of our major national leaders (one in the making) passed through the rigors of judicial process
Political agitation of nearly four years leading to three landmark judgments of the Supreme Court in 2017 has transformed the political landscape of our country, plunging it in further uncertainty that is likely to persist till the next general elections are held.
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was disqualified by a five member bench from holding an elected office. He was subjected to further humiliation, as the court ordered NAB to file references of corruption and reopen old cases against his entire family. The findings are to be concluded within six months, overseen by a Supreme Court implementation judge.
Soon thereafter, a three member bench awarded Imran Khan a clean chit on all counts in a petition filed by Hanif Abbassi. The same bench disqualified his close confidant and secretary general of the party on account of almost similar charges. The media termed the two simultaneous judgments as a balancing act. Some called it the revival of the ancient ‘doctrine of necessity” (as enunciated in Roman Law) that was first used in 1955 by Chief Justice Mohamed Munir to validate the actions of the governor general that went beyond the law — a precedence that has been resorted to as justification on a number of occasions since.
Also during the current regime, several other court verdicts had a direct impact on the political horizon. Former dictator president General Pervez Musharaf was allowed to leave the country by the interior ministry (citing a court order), despite serious charges of murder and treason pending against him. He promptly boarded a plane for the safe havens of Dubai and London where he now leads a comfortable life of freedom and luxury. The media continues to keep his political aspirations alive by providing him prime time coverage on television.
Court proceedings are interminable and have become exorbitantly expensive. Timely justice still remains beyond the reach of the litigants. The lawyer community has become unruly. The honourable chief justices, despite good intentions and proclamations, have not succeeded in introducing judicial reforms to ensure quick dispensation of cases and elimination of graft
The courts acquitted our former president and co-chairman of PPP Asif Ali Zadari in all the numerous charges of mega corruption charges that he had faced bravely for decades. In the astounding clearance by the courts, his vast fortune at home and abroad now stands legitimised.
Thus, four of our major national leaders (one in the making) passed through the rigors of judicial process. The circumstances, evidences and interpretation of law against each of them were different –and so were the outcomes. The public perception in each of these censures by the courts has been of bewilderment, giving rise to intense public debate. Meanwhile, financial corruption that was at the core of most of these cases continues unabated and unabashed in all sectors of our society.
During the previous five years of democratic government, prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani had to surrender his office subsequent to a conviction of contempt by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. His successor was also called to make appearances in the court on charges of corruption in rental power projects– a case that remains undecided till date. It appears that the superior judiciary has taken it upon itself to subject the return to democracy since 2008 under its close scrutiny.
The judiciary acquired full independence in 2007, subsequent to the nationwide charged lawyers’ movement supported by the political parties. President Pervez Musharaf was forced to reinstate the then chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, weakening his grip on power that eventually ended the military rule. With newfound goodwill, the Supreme Court converted itself into a fully autonomous institution with its own budget, appointment and promotion criteria, all entirely without any outside interference or bureaucratic controls. It also holds the powers to strike down any laws framed by the parliament. It is answerable to no one.
Suo moto initiatives taking notice of administrative lapses are being frequently exercised by the Supreme Court, summoning all tiers of the executive. Several major government decisions have been reversed and two prime ministers have already been dismissed. In short, it has assumed the role of a watchdog, overseeing all aspects of governance. Unfortunately, no meaningful results are apparent that have strengthened the institutions or benefitted the ordinary people.
Whereas considerable time is consumed in cases of public interest, thousands of cases are pending awaiting decisions in all courts. Lower courts are reputed to be rife with monetary demands at all levels. Court proceedings are interminable and have become exorbitantly expensive. Timely justice still remains beyond the reach of the litigants. The lawyer community has become unruly. The honourable chief justices, despite good intentions and proclamations, have not succeeded in introducing judicial reforms to ensure quick dispensation of cases and elimination of graft.
Regardless of the motivations, consequences or merit of all the above, the media savoury high profile cases have generated controversies. Some decisions have conveyed an impression of pressure from certain quarters. Some have resulted in regression in the functioning of decision making by government servants while several government schemes have been suspended or delayed by stay orders.
Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that it is the incompetence or lapses of the politicians that has provided space to the judiciary and establishment to step in time and again, in one form or the other. If our political elite and the administration had functioned with foresight, wisdom and within their own limited sphere, Pakistan would by now have been a progressive state, second to none
Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi sounds ominous in proclaiming it is very difficult to govern. In the prevailing environment of perpetual leg-pulling, negativity and suspicion, where everyone is trying to do other’s job except one’s own — it must be so.
Historically, intervention by more stable institutions under the pretext of national interest when others are fragile and fail to deliver, have become a norm in our country. A penchant to exceed authority, downgrade others and take control seems to be ingrained as our national trait. Progress is possible only if all pillars of state function effectively, within their prescribed domain and parallel to each other with no weaker links. Democracy can function only if the parliament is supreme, possesses the capacity to assert itself with a vision to take the country forward and is not just a debating club or a forum to extract personal favours.
