close
Thursday March 28, 2024

Some in PPP oppose right of appeal for Sharifs in suo moto cases

By Tariq Butt
November 28, 2016

ISLAMABAD: A serious difference of opinion prevails in the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) on the 24th constitutional amendment, moved by the government in the National Assembly, to provide for a right of appeal to an aggrieved party in suo motu cases decided by the Supreme Court.

However, such amendment is included in the PPP manifesto. The section of the PPP opposing it suspects that it is intended to benefit Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his children in case the Supreme Court hands down a ruling against them in the offshore companies case.

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has also rejected the amendment on the same grounds and Shah Mehmood Qureshi says he is trying to unite the opposition parties to oppose it.

Senior PPP leader Farhatullah Babar has supported the amendment saying that though his party has reservations on the timing of the amendment at this particular time that is meant to serve the purpose of the government, it has decided to endorse it as it was included in the PPP manifesto.

On the contrary, leader of the opposition in the Senate Aitzaz Ahsan has announced to resist the passage of the amendment till the decision on the offshore companies by the top court.

Babar says the PPP had already proposed to streamline the procedure of suo motu and also moved a resolution in the Senate to the effect but the present government had opposed it. Now when the government itself wants to approve this amendment, the PPP has decided to back it.

The proposed amendment is regarded as a good piece of legislation but questions have been raised over its timing. It grants an aggrieved party the right of appeal against an order passed by a Supreme Court bench under article 184(3) before a larger panel of judges of the same highest judicial forum within thirty days of the passing of the first ruling.

Its introduction at this point of time gives the impression as if it has been sponsored in view of the ongoing proceedings in the apex court against the premier on account of offshore companies and London flats.

However, the amendment didn’t touch another article 199 which also vests somewhat similar powers in high courts. This provision is also invoked for enforcement of fundamental rights etc. But it says the right to move a high court for enforcement of fundamental rights shall not be abridged while there is no such thing in article 184(3). The reason behind not amending it could be that high court decisions under this article are appealable in the apex court.

The PPP has always been in the forefront in seeking remedy against the judicial decisions under article 184(3) as it feels that this clause mostly targeted it during the time of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry when it was generously applied.

However, with his departure from the bench, the invocation of this article has become very sparing and rare. While one set of politicians had been rejoicingover the abundant resort to suo motu notices, the other had been strongly opposed to it arguing that such judgments can’t be appealed anywhere.

The present petitions filed by PTI Chairman Imran Khan and others against the premier also invoked article 184(3) for enforcement of fundamental rights. Under the Constitution, review petitions are allowed against such decisions, which, however, are heard by the same bench that had delivered the first verdict. There is no instance when the original ruling was reversed in review.

Legal experts have also been questioning the non-availability of right of appeal and stressing that the liberal use of suo motu powers be avoided because the aggrieved parties did not have any forum where they can call such decisions into question. They quote article 10A which says that for the determination of his civil rights and obligations or in any criminal charge against him, a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process. It was introduced by the famous 18th amendment.