PM’s disqualification
A TV broadcast showing Yousuf Raza Gilani at a barber shop in a neighbourhood, in Islamabad.—AP Photo
IN disqualifying a sitting, democratically elected prime minister, the Supreme Court has taken an extraordinary — and unfortunate — step.
This whole story could have played out very differently, in ways much less disruptive to the nascent democracy this country is trying to build, if the SC had steered clear of a course of action that has now brought the judiciary, parliament and the executive in direct confrontation with each other. At a number of junctures the court could have avoided pursuing the contempt of court case as doggedly as it did, especially considering that the larger issue — corruption — was a matter involving the president, not the prime minister. Legally there might have been a case against the prime minister, but it was best for the supreme judiciary not to have waded so deep into such obviously political waters. Even at a later stage, it could have let the speaker’s ruling — which has the backing of a parliamentary resolution — stand. If that was not possible, it could have declared her ruling unacceptable and referred the matter to the Election Commission rather than simply asking that body to issue a denotification. Even if the outcome had ultimately been the same, at least the court would not have taken on the role of directly disqualifying an elected prime minister. By doing so, it has both disrupted an existing democratic set-up and set a worrying precedent for the future.
But the damage has been done. And the PPP has an important choice to make. The party should now take the high moral ground and focus on the system rather than the individual. There are disruptive options: refusing to accept the order, for example, or delaying the matter by using the constitution to argue that the president can ask the prime minister to continue in office until a new one is appointed. For the sake of preserving the system, if the party has reservations against the judgment it should express these, perhaps even through a strongly worded parliamentary resolution, have Mr Yousuf Raza Gilani step aside and parliament elect a new prime minister as soon as possible.
Indications are that the ruling coalition has already embarked on this course. But it is still deeply unfortunate that matters have come to this stage; completing the five-year tenure of both an elected government and its chief executive would have been a much-needed win for Pakistan. What is critical now is that elections are held, whether early or on time and as free and fair as possible, so that the final judgment can be left to the people’s court.
After reading some of the comments I have come to conclusion that all the opinions are divided but one fact is there that the judgement has been accepted by the president who is ruling the show. The judges were right to take this action when most of the government ministers were talking foul against the judiciary.
I, by and large, agree with the underlying point in the article that democracy should be allowed to flourish in Pakistan BUT I STRONGLY feel the court has excercised immense restraint in its proceedings against the government, but if the "democratically elected" government is hell bent upon ridiculing and bullying the court and making a mockery of its verdicts than after almost 5 YEARS of Patience, is it really a surprise if the court finally puts an end to this sham in the name of democracy?
No doubt critical issues remain but you can't let such conduct go unpunished
Though not a fan of this government, I have to agree with HRCP on this one. Law works on precedents and not individuals. I think everyone is focusing on the fact that a corrupt Prime Minister was removed, so it should be celebrated.
What some of my country men see today is: Ifthikhar Chuadry directed Yousaf Gillani to write a letter to Swiss authorities to bring back all the money embezzled by Zardari and once he refused, Chaudry sahib ruled that it is contempt of court and hence Gillani is no longer PM…..
But removing all the names, what do we have: The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, asked the Prime Minster of a country to write a letter to another country to start legal action against a President who has full immunity which even the Chief Justice does not deny, but says what is the harm in writing a letter? The Prime Minister replies that the harm is that it is not only an embarrassment to the President but to the whole country and contradicts the constitution (which gives him immunity to legal action in any country). The Chief Justice then ignoring the millions of people who indirectly (through their MNAs) used their constitutional right of voting to elect the Prime Minister and took it upon himself to dismiss the PM for not following his order
My first observation: Is this not the same thing Pervaiz Musharf did to Ifthikhar Chaudry (one guy refused to follow the orders, so the other guy took it upon himself to fire him, without caring whether he even has the power or right to do this?)… Secondly let us close our eyes and pretend we are 10 years from now and god willing, Imran Khan or another very honest person is the Prime Minister and a very corrupt Chief Justice orders him to do something the PM feels contradicts the Constitution. That CJ now has the power to slap Imran Khan with a contempt of court charge and declare that he is no longer the PM, as a precedent now already exists for this.
Let us not forget getting rid of these corrupt politicians is just one step and we should not let another take their place.
My two cents you don't have to agree if you don't want too, but I think this has diminished the power of my vote and my basic human right.
Gilani was caught up in a genuine constitutional dilemma. Supreme Court should have interpreted the constitutional provisions for future . At present Supreme Court' s decisions mean that President does not have immunity. The only President not to have it. What a country.
The part that Military used to play in Pakistan in the past has now been played by the Supreme Judiciary. The disqualification of an incumbent Prime Minister (holding office through valid means that is through democracy) by Judiciary and not by the Parliament is a very dangerous precedent. This is very dangerous for democracy. Even if one is to believe that the present Judiciary under the CJ Iftikhar M Chowdary is honest and blameless, where is the guarantee that CJs and Justices of future will be of the same high moral class…this indeed is ‘a worrying precedent for the future’.
No doubt that its another coup by our unelected, elitist Judiary using the PM' so-called contempt as a pretext to overthrow an elected,democratic govt of Pakistan. Similar to what SC has done before to subvert democracy and rule of law, liike the dismissal of Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan;s NA, or legalizing PM Kh Nazimuddin's dismissal or judicial murder of PM ZA Bhutto. For the last year or so every Order of CJ has been in violation of the Constitution and Pak laws. This SC has become a farce and joke in knowing and applying the law. The whole world is condemning this illegal act.On the other hand this CJ justified the overthrow of the Constitution and rule of law by dictator Musharraf. The recent actions of CJ has shown that the judiciary is worse than Army dictators. History will judge this decision by CJ as a black letter for democracy and freedom.. This is also perhaps the most corrupt and ambitious judiciary in Pak history.
what a weak editorial from a strong Newspaper like DAWN. Do you really think Pakistanis wanted Gilani to stay in power further to degrade this corrupt democracy further more. The country is at the brink of civil war due to this in-efficient,corrupt and weak govt. and the editorial says let such democratic course should have completed its full term. For what?
"Nobody is above the law" is the clear message sent out by the verdict of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissing Yousuf Raza Gilani from the post of prime minister. The judgement has come at a time when the rule of law in Pakistan was at stake after the refusal by Gilani to obey the order of the highest court of country. And later he chose not to resign after being convicted for contempt of court. How could a convict be the head of a government in any civilized society? It is a landmark judgement which has restored the dignity of the courts and respect for the rule of the law.
Your have argued that the judgement may derail democratic process in Pakistan. A democracy does not mean dictatorship of the ruling class simply because they have got the mandate to rule. The Constitution and the laws as interpreted by court constitute the foundation of a nation whithout which the whole edifice will fall to the ground. Hiding behing democracy for all kinds of misdeeds is definitely not in the interest of any nation. People of Pakistan now can hope to see dawn of a new era based on rule of law and respect for the courts.
After creating such a huge constitutional mess and then getting entangled in a corruption case himself, CJ does not deserve his job any more so he should resign.
It is not the rule of law that is in question here; it is the "law" of the rule. The "law" of the rule appears to be varying across spectra here. The first "law" of the rule is the ruling class in the form of the parliament represented by the prime minister. The second "law" of the rule is the judiciary which has been politicizing itself taking suo moto action against anything and everthing, all of which has cast serious doubts on its credibility. The third "law" of the rule is the president who has been using the first law as means of shielding himself from the second. The fourth "law" of the rule is the military whose influece is not what it used to be but it still enjoys an unparallelled clout affairs. The fifth "law" of the rule is the media which has been pitching the above four against one another. Lastly, the sixth "law" of the rule are the Mullahs who continue to impose their bogus and redundant agenda on the masses without any positive results whatsoever for the country. These six "laws" reign supreme in Pakistan and they dicatate our lives.
good assessment. sc is on wrong side.
Biggest terrorist in Pakistan is your beloved Chief Justice. He is a conspirator. Gilani is best PM so far. He has shown the corrupt judges their place, that is CONTMPT.
The prime focus of SC is to maintain or uphold justice and that is what they did. Thousand wrong precedences have been established by ruling parities politicians, this rot can only be cleaned by strictly adhering to provide justice to the people of Pakistan by courts. General or Politician! nobody is above the law.
Agree with the editorial.
I would add that whoever gets selected as the next PM is going to get the same order to send the letter to the Swiss and they won't be allowed the luxury of arguing whether it's constitutional. In the end neither Gilani, SC, or Pakistan come off very well as a result of this dispute. Pakistan is in desperate need of more leadership and less ego driven decision makers.