Salient features of SC order raise questions about govt’s decision

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s order suspending COAS General Qamar Javed Bajwa’s three years extension as Army Chief not only speaks volumes about the incompetence of Imran Khan government, but also raises fundamental questions about validity of such a decision.

Following are the most striking points of SC’s Tuesday’s order, authored by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa:

- Attorney General for Pakistan has not been able to refer to any provision in any legal instrument regarding extension in service of a Chief of the Army Staff upon completion of his first term in that office or for his re-appointment to that office after completion of his first term.

- The Attorney General for Pakistan very candidly submitted before the court that in the entire body of laws pertaining to the Pakistan Army there is no express provision available regarding re-appointment or extension in the service of a Chief of the Army Staff.

- The stated purpose for the proposed re-appointment/extension in the term of office of the incumbent Chief of the Army Staff is “regional security environment”. If the said reason is held to be correct and valid then every person serving in the armed forces would claim re-appointment/extension in his service on the basis of the said reason.

- Regulation No. 255 of the Army Regulations (Rules), which was referred to by the Attorney General prima facie shows that the said provision can be invoked after an officer has already retired from service and that is why the said regulation speaks of suspension of retirement or limiting of retirement. Suspending a retirement or limiting a retirement before the retirement has actually taken effect may amount to putting the cart before the horse.

- The process adopted by the government for Army Chief’s appointment was flawed. Prime minister had passed an order appointing the current Chief of the Army Staff for a second term in that office on 19.08.2019 whereas under Article 243 of the Constitution it is the president who is the appointing authority for that office. Apparently that mistake came to notice straightaway and on the same day, i.e. 19.08.2019 a summary was moved from the Prime Minister’s Office to the president for extension/re-appointment of the incumbent Chief of the Army Staff and on that very day, i.e. 19.08.2019 the president approved the summary. Even that process was found to be flawed and on that very day it was realised that the prime minister or the president could not take the above mentioned actions without the approval of the cabinet and, thus, on the next day, i.e. 20.08.2019 a summary was moved for approval of the cabinet and on 21.08.2019 the cabinet was said to have approved the said proposal through circulation.

Out of 25 members of the cabinet consulted only 11 had agreed to the proposal which shows that the majority of the cabinet had not approved the said proposal.

- After the purported or so-called approval of the cabinet regarding extension/re-appointment of the incumbent Chief of Army Staff the matter was never sent to the prime minister or the president again for the purposes of a fresh advice or a fresh order of the prime minister and the president respectively.