As a student of history of Pakistan, my feelings in this case are mixed. On one hand there is little doubt that ‘Contempt’ of the highest court of Pakistan has been committed and as such her verdict of sentencing the sitting PM is correct.
On the other hand, there are extenuating circumstances. Firstly Court can only issue a decree, execution of the decree is thru the Executive. A simple question of practicability. Was it a practical matter to order a PM to write a letter to another court against his own Head of State?
Secondly, whatever the shape of democracy may be in our country, there is no denying the fact the Gilani has been elected thru constitutional means. Is it democratic to remove an elected PM thru judicial means?
May be the SC should have ordered that the letter should be written after the end of Zardari presidency. The case in question goes back to 1990’s, another year of so could hardly make a difference.
There is no one above the law but the law must also be seen to be just. For example ZAB was sentenced by the Supreme Court; however everyone today calls it a judicial murder! Recent events especially in the memo gate case give clear indications that Supreme Court in general and the CJ in particular are biased and pro PML-N.
As mentioned in the Nazir Naji’s article today, total number of people supporting CJ was less than one lac in a country of 18 crores! Unprecedented coverage of electronic media plus support of political parties gave the false impression that whole of Pakistan had come out on the streets. CJ obviously feels obligated to Nawaz Sharif.
I don’t think that any one has come out smelling good from this episode. I hope sooner this CJ retires the better for everyone; it is bad enough to have tainted politicians, but to have a Chief Justice who is tainted with political bias?
A poignant article published in the Daily News is noted below.
Articles 62 and 63
Harris Khalique
Friday, April 27, 2012
I am not a legal expert but as a citizen and a keen student of my country’s political history, I have an opinion on Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Apparently, the court has not invoked Article 63(1)g directly and convicted the prime minister under section 5 of the contempt of court ordinance, but it does mention the said article in its verdict and says that the finding and the conviction are likely to entail some serious consequences in terms of this article which may be treated as a mitigating factor to the sentence they pass. Meaning thereby, since the convict may face disqualification from his office and his seat in parliament, they have restricted themselves to a softer sentence.
The issue of writing a letter to the Swiss Courts to reopen cases against President Asif Ali Zardari, came to surface after the court struck down the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) in 2009, which was issued in 2007 by former president, Gen Pervez Musharraf.
The status of the president enjoying constitutional immunity from any judicial trial apart, one may argue that some judges who took oath under the same dictator’s Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) and gave his rule lease by sitting on a bench headed by the former Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, found the NRO illegal.
One may also say that the honourable judges are selective in considering cases of the same nature involving other people. Then they also took another year and a half to dismiss the review petition filed by the government. But there is a limit to historicising. Therefore, let us now look at 63(1)g, the complete article it is a part of, and, the preceding Article 62 of the Constitution.
These articles were a part of the 1973 Constitution, subsequently amended in 1974 and made harsher in 1985. Article 62 deals with the qualifications for becoming a member of parliament and Article 63 deals with causes for disqualification from the membership.
While there are obvious reasons to have qualification and disqualification criteria for members in any constitution, the articles our Constitution contains have serious lacunae which can always be used to politically victimise any elected member.
The terms like good character, good moral reputation, moral turpitude, practising obligatory duties prescribed by Islam, abstaining from major sins, Islamic injunctions, Ideology of Pakistan, bringing into ridicule the judiciary or the armed forces, etc are vague, immeasurable and hard to establish in a just way.
For instance, in legal terms, public life is affected by crime and not sin. Morality is a relative concept and good reputation is highly subjective. There was a two-nation theory when Pakistan was created. The Ideology of Pakistan became a usable term only after Gen Sher Ali Pataudi promoted it in 1969, soon to be desecrated in the eastern wing of the country. Besides, what does ridiculing mean?
If some of the judges used the law of necessity in the past, legitimised dictatorships or ruled under duress, can no parliamentarian of Pakistan raise her concerns? If some generals abrogate the Constitution, manipulate political events and violate the limits put by the Constitution, can no parliamentarian raise his voice?
I share my view of Articles 62 and 63 with also Imran Khan, whose politics I otherwise find without substance. He said in June 2007, when the MQM presented a resolution against him, that these articles can only be applied to angels and not human beings.
The writer is an Islamabad-based poet and author. Email:
harris.khalique@gmail.com
Articles 62 and 63 - Harris Khalique