IHC judgement: short and snappy, no verbiage

News Analysis

By Tariq Butt

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) judgment disqualifying Khawaja Asif lacks verbosity and long-windedness and is a straight and to the point ruling, confining itself to pure relevant facts and circumstances of the case.

However, the last paragraph of the ruling demonstrated judges’ reservations over taking up cases of political nature noting: We have handed down this judgment with a heavy heart not only because a seasoned and accomplished political figure stands disqualified but also the dreams and aspirations of 342,125 registered voters [of NA-110 constituency] have suffered a setback. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Usman Dar, who failed to oust Asif through a lengthy court battle at different judicial forums over the last five years, was finally successful to get his constituency rival via the IHC.

The NA-110 Sialkot was one of the four National Assembly seats the results of which the PTI had agitated for a long time quickly after the 2013 general elections. A judicial commission had knocked out Imran Khan’s allegations of rigging in the parliamentary polls.

First, Dar knocked at the doors of the election tribunal where he lost. He then approached the Supreme Court where he also got no relief. At another occasion, he raised it in the apex court but to no avail. Asif, who had defeated him with a lead of 21,275 votes, enjoyed the rare distinction of winning all the general elections he contested in 1993, 1997, 2002, 2008 and 2013.

The IHC ruling may possibly strengthen the narrative built by deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif that he and top leaders of his Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) are being targeted in the ongoing process.

Asif’s disqualification is indeed a major jolt and setback to Nawaz Sharif as the former is counted among his topmost confidantes. His opinion was always given much credence in the PML-N. His removal as the foreign minister of Pakistan can create a problem for the government that still has around five weeks to go.

Since the start of the proceedings at the IHC, Asif never ever offered even a single comment on Dar’s petition. Even after the judgment, his reaction was calculated and measured in which he said that there was nothing new because he has already declared the facts impugned. He never attended any hearing in the IHC and left the entire job to his lawyer to deal with.

A number of lawyers had stated after the July 28, 2017 ruling of the Supreme Court in which Nawaz Sharif was expelled that it would open a Pandora’s Box which will hit lawmakers irrespective of their political affiliation. Senior PTI leader Jahangir Tareen has already been affected by it.

Three days before the IHC decision, PTI Chairman Imran Khan announced that news of a big wicket falling in the political arena will be heard soon. He had evaded a question whether he was talking about Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) stalwart Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan.

Considering the lethal sparring going on between Asif, Imran Khan and other PTI leaders, the PTI chief is naturally thrilled over the foreign minister’s ejection from the electoral field, which is for life unless the verdict is overturned by the top court. The concluding paragraph of the judgment is interesting. “Before parting we would like to observe that it is not a pleasant duty for any court to be called upon to examine and exercise powers of judicial review which may lead to an elected representative being disqualified as MP.”

However, when political forces, it said, instead of settling disputes at the political forums, particularly Parliament, resort to the courts, it has consequences not only for the institutions but the litigant public as well. This conduct of political forces lowers public confidence in the legislature on the one hand and on the other hand exposes the institution of the judiciary to the controversies of adversarial politics. The political forces are expected to settle their grievances before the political forums rather than taking the precious time of the bona fide litigants awaiting justice to be dispensed.

The judgment said that Parliament deserves utmost respect and its prestige and public confidence depends on the conduct of its members who represent the actual stakeholders i.e. the people of Pakistan. It would have been appropriate if the political party to which Usman Dar belongs had raised the issue at hand in Parliament before invoking the IHC jurisdiction. It is ironic that Pakistan is amongst the few countries where a formal code of ethics and conduct for MPs and the cabinet has not been prescribed so as to avoid situations such as have been observed in the facts and circumstances of the instant petition.