close
Thursday March 28, 2024

A legacy of consequences

By Malik Muhammad Ashraf
August 04, 2017

General Ziaul Haq and Justice Munir will always be remembered by the people of Pakistan for the harm they inflicted on the political landscape through their acts that are still used as precedent on various occasions.

While the latter paved the way for the judiciary to legitimise military coups by employing the doctrine of necessity and thereby allowing subsequent dictators to mutilate the constitution, the former was responsible for introducing a jihadi culture in the country, fomenting sectarianism under official patronage and including articles 58(2)(b), 62 and 63 within the constitution.

Article 58(2)(b) conferred the power to dissolve the assemblies and send the elected governments packing on the president. It has been used once by the dictator himself and thrice by civilian presidents to dismiss elected governments, consigning the country to an unending political instability and scuttling the chances of democracy that were taking root in the country. Although the article has been removed from the constitution, its negative effects have continued to torment the nation. The frequent martial laws also created an imbalance in the civil-military relations, with the scales tilting in the latter’s favour.

Since their inception, Article 62 and Article 63 had remained dormant until the PTI, the JI and the Awami Muslim League invoked them in their petitions before the apex court to seek the disqualification of Nawaz Sharif as prime minister. They cited contradictions in the statements that the former prime minister had made in the National Assembly and outside parliament with regard to offshore companies owned by his family as revealed in the Panama leaks case. They also accused the prime minister of money laundering and tax evasion.

The petitions were filed in October 2016 and after many months of tenuous and protracted hearings and investigations, the five-member bench of the Supreme Court through a unanimous decision disqualified the prime minister under Article 62 (1)(f) for failing to declare his assets. The bench ordered NAB to file references against him along with other members of his family, including Minister for Finance Ishaq Dar in the Ehtesab Court.

The SC invoked its jurisdiction in the case under Article 184(3) and heard it from scratch even though it is, under normal circumstances, a court of appeal. The writ filed by Imran Khan and other political parties in the SC that sought the disqualification of Nawaz Sharif under Article 62 and Article 63 was undoubtedly a politically-motivated attempt to exploit constitutional provisions.

Politicians have, in fact, axed their own feet by invoking these articles. While they may be rejoicing about sending home a political opponent whom they could not defeat through the ballot box, many of them fail to understand that the verdict has added to the vulnerabilities of politicians and could be exploited by anti-democratic forces. Furthermore, they could also be victims of similar developments in future. Imran Khan and Jehangir Tareen might also face the same fate. In fact, similar cases are being heard against them by the Supreme Court.

Nawaz Sharif stepped down immediately after the verdict was delivered. However, it seems the Sharif family and the PML-N are geared towards exhausting all legal and constitutional avenues to contest the decision.

The PML-N’s response to the issue will become clearer with time. But one thing is certain: the SC’s decision is likely to have serious political repercussions.

The judiciary is considered to be the most sanctimonious pillar of the state and its decisions in cases of national importance do have long-lasting effects. These include cases where judges have validated martial laws. The judges were right when they said that the decision in the Panama case would be remembered for centuries. But it is unlikely that it will be remembered for auspicious reasons.

Following this decision, there is a strong likelihood that the SC will struggle to cope with references filed by political leaders and parties that invoke these constitutional provisions against their opponents.

 

The writer is a freelance contributor.

Email: ashpak10@gmail.com