The two judgments
Gilani, centre, surrounded by guards, leaves the Supreme Court.—AP Photo
ALL praises to the Almighty that the people of Pakistan have been blessed with two history-making judgments of the apex court and this within a matter of days.
The more momentous of the two verdicts has ended the months-old agony of Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani by pushing him off the prime ministerial gaddi. Since the issue was contempt of the highest court in the land the verdict was not unexpected, though the scale of punishment is.
While all Supreme Court verdicts must always be honoured even if they do not appear to be sound, it may not be possible to avoid a prolonged discussion on the present judgment. There are quite a few issues that will need to be clarified.
Only time will tell, after the current wave of emotional frenzy has subsided, whether this judgment will be viewed as a vindication of the judiciary’s authority or as an avoidable encroachment on the political domain of parliament, and whether the majesty of law only means the majesty of judges. It hardly needs to be said that history has not always upheld crucial judicial decisions, however popular they might have been in the first instance.
To say this does not mean siding with Mr Gilani and his party; it only means that regardless of any party’s guilt, justice must not only be done, it should also seen to be done. Besides, whatever the circumstances the near total eclipse of parliamentary institutions is a prospect even a stable and disciplined state cannot afford. The consequences to Pakistan cannot be viewed with equanimity. The ouster of a prime minister on a non-political charge calls for solemn reflection and not dancing in the streets.
The PPP as the major partner in the ruling coalition has done well to accept the verdict and start looking for Mr Gilani’s successor. It might have been better for them to vacate the stage altogether in favour of the people more acceptable to both the permanent and ideological wings of the establishment.
The other judgment, which disposed of the suo motu Case No 5 of 2012, regarding media coverage of some allegedly shady deals, has been pushed into the background but it will also be debated for long. This because the Supreme Court has withstood another three-yearly test, and is saying that “today, as ever, the court has endeavoured to uphold the constitution and has stood up to unconstitutional forces bent upon undermining it”.
The debate will be long because the court has chosen not to identify the “unconstitutional forces” behind the Malik Riaz-Arsalan Iftikhar affair. The only people taken to task in the judgment belong to the electronic media, and they cannot be suspected of possessing the capacity to undermine the constitution or the judiciary.
By stopping short of exposing the invisible hands that conspired against the judiciary the matter has been left in the area of speculation. As a result the lawyers, who claim to be friends of the judiciary, and who need not be guided by it, may be looking for scapegoats in the wrong places. They should know about the forces capable of using carefully stored information to rattle any institution, the judiciary not excepted.
A highly gratifying feature of the judgment is the assurance that the tradition of replacing a few dry and dreary paragraphs on an exposition of law with classical verse is getting stronger. There is progress too inasmuch as, instead of relying on translations, Hafiz is quoted in his own language. The promotion of Persian poetry, criminally neglected by the education bosses, is yet another feather in the court’s already bulging plumage. And one does not have words to thank the august court for reminding us of the incomparable words of wisdom (Everybody’s flight of mind is limited by his capacity). Indeed, My Lords.
There is a danger, however, that the intoxicating poetry may make us miss Justice Khilji’s observation that “although family members of public functionaries are, properly speaking, not performing state functions, the alleged facts of this case highlight the necessity of extreme caution and discretion in their private and public dealings and conduct”. It is possible the good judge wrote the four-sentence note only to issue this essential warning.
The verdict will also be debated for offering media celebrities a lesson in the ethics of reporting. The advice to media persons to check and recheck the authenticity of information they rely on is wholly valid. But it may not be fair to blame journalists for failing to find out “what has been ascertained by us with very little effort”. Journalists in Pakistan cannot even dream of the power the courts enjoy, especially these days.
It is for the privileged journalists to ponder the causes of their fall from grace. Not long ago they were hailed as leaders of the morality brigade when they were hounding the government’s counsel and tearing into their submissions to the court before the judges had looked at them. What made them change? Or can it be said that they did not change, only the beholder’s angle of vision changed?
As a sequel to Case No 5, quite a few media figures have also been accused of picking crumbs from discredited operators’ tables. This game has been played before. During the past few decades incomplete lists of journalists who received undue favours from the state or its services have been leaked more than once but never pursued. Let us now have all the lists published. Sadly enough, quite like the politicians who quarrel among themselves to the amusement of their common enemy, the media groups are piling calumny upon calumny on their professional rivals alone.
Only a few should, however, be surprised at the allegations against the media persons who have learnt the way to profit from an order that is corrupt to the core. There can be no islands of honesty in an ocean of corruption. Who does not know about handout journalists that grew up under Ayub Khan or the breed of lifafa (envelope) journalists raised by Ziaul Haq! It is no secret that pliable scribes are planted in various media establishments and retained by intelligence operators and the most powerful employers cannot think of touching them.
The sooner an across-the-board accountability is held the better. The journalists’ unions should hold full-scale inquiries and remind the people, including the born-yesterday angels, of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists’ code of ethics drawn up half a century ago.
True, there are black sheep in the media. Yet no holier-than-thou institution has the right to paint the whole media community as a bunch of galley slaves up for auction. The fools who sweat day in and day out for a pittance, who are not even paid their wages, greatly outnumber the successful and popular celebrities.
The way to deal with the rot all around is not to make an example of a few politicians, a few journalists, or a few unmentionable names in this category or that; the entire mosaic of Pakistan society needs to be replaced by better quality pieces.
This task can be accomplished neither by the whip of the law nor the preachers suffering from illusions of grandeur and infallibility. Let normal political activity continue uninterrupted, the people will themselves throw up their saviours.
Very precise and to the point analysis
Pakistan is a Constitutional Democracy and not Parliamentary like UK. Therefore, Judiciary has a role to play which it rightly did.
The head lines of Los Angeles Times was “Judicial coup in Pakistan”
The judgement against Gilani is not against the political institutions but against the individual that seeks to rise above them. No one is above the law. That is the first step to accountability, governance and in the end, justice
Sadly, I feel Mr Rehman is exhibiting signs of intellectual dishonesty not expected from a journalist and human rights champion of his stature. This not withstanding the rather weak judgement in Riaz Arsalan case but a legally sound one in the contempt case (only tarnished by the poetry inasmuch it distracted fromthe reasoning. The country was divided once because of bad politicians once and leaving the bad ones incharge will divide it again….failure of Parliamentarians to uphold the moral standards is the biggest ill, not an over active judiciary.
judicial marshal law ??? i am worry about the judges, their justice…..
In italy the changes happen after every hr not a big deal the major deal is whether our country get the luxury of HONESTY!1
great judgement
An excellent analysis of the possibility of paralysis in the political arena of Pakistan
I regularly follow political events in Pakistan with keen interest and they never cease to surprise me. When just-deposed Prime Minister of Pakistan Mr. Gilani defied the order of the Supreme Court to write to the Swiss authority for reopening of investigation against his boss President Zardari I was as much amazed as I am now to see the apex court go to the extent of removing the defiant minister from power, overstepping its brief. Prime Minister stays in power as long as he enjoys the confidence of the Parliament, not that of the Supreme court. The Court may have reflected the opinion of the people through its pronouncement but it is supposed to be an exception not the rule. The primary responsibility of it is to see whether the constitution is being followed in its letter and spirit. And as far as this particular judgement is concerned it is clearly in violation of all canons of jurisprudence even in the opinion of renowned experts on Pakistan.like Mr. Ahmed Rashid. Celebration of the people of Pakistan is quite understandable though. They wanted to see fall of Mr. Gilani, little do care about which way it comes.
The march of time will decide whether this was a momentous or sad day for Pakistan; whether we replaced one kind of martial law with another. In a democracy one is not supposed to be awed by individuals. Yet we show a marked tendency to set up mini-gods, straw gods — call them what you will. Certain niggling facts won't go away: endorsing Musharraf's ascent to power; a son allegedly involved in shady deals; exempting right wing politicians from judicial scrutiny; turning a blind eye to hard evidence in the Lal Masjid episode. Ultimately, doesn't the prerogative to throw out a prime minister reside with parliament? Wherefore the cacophony of calls for early elections? Isn’t there a constitutional provision for this as well, namely a no confidence motion? Why are eminent lawyers like Asma Jehangir and Aitzaz Ahsan being denied access to bar association offices? Why can’t Riaz Malik find a lawyer to represent him? Is our eagerness for good governance letting in judicial absolutism on the backs of a legal mafia that acts more like bullies than lawyers. It increasingly looks like vox populi may not be vox NOT dei after all.
Another excellent piece like what Rehman sahib always writes.
With the greatest respect, I dare ask Mr. Rahman why he missed mentioning some instances from Pak and Foreign courts in support of his blanket statement “It hardly needs to be said that history has not always upheld crucial judicial decisions, however popular they might have been in the first instance.” Equally galling is hi statement “the court has chosen not to identify the “unconstitutional forces” behind the Malik Riaz-Arsalan Iftikhar affair” today when everyone has seen and knows that there were people who had a deep interest in tarnishing CJ Iftikhaar………remember Gilani”s son calling the anchors of Duniya tv during the rehearsal of their interview of Malik Riaz.
Rahman saheb you can do much better than this
I fully agree with the writer but the question is this possible. We hope some good will come out eventualy.
Huge respect, Rehman Sahab. You say it as it is like no-one does. Thank You.
Soul wakening! Excellent!
"Let normal political activity continue uninterrupted, the people will themselves throw up their saviours." This is the panacea that has not worked. IA Rehman is sadly mistaken if mere political activity would magically address everything – most of all the economy. A political activity tainted by dishonesty, incompetence and corruption would continue to fall victim and would continue to be manipulated. This is not as easy as IA Rehman is making it out.
good opinion,
Sane voice……
Now what is going to happen? Somebody tell me what is going to happen to us. The whole nation only wants to know what will come after this. Will things be better for us? Will the poor get food? Will the sick get medicine? Will the thirsty get water? Will the uneducated get an education? Will a nation without hope get hope? Will those in bondage be free? What have we achieved with this? Someone tell me where all this is going?
It would be quite interesting to find out if the law makers of Pakistan who made the constitution of Pakistan wanted to derail the continuity of government of Pakistan by removing a sitting Prime Minister of Pakistan who is responsible for running the government of Pakistan. Is the removal of a sitting Prime Minister a punishment to him or her or a threat to the entire Pakistan as no one will know what plans or strategies the Prime Minister had in mind to tackle the various problems, including serious ones facing Pakistan. Constitutions are designed primarily to safeguard the country and not to derail the continuity of the government of a country.
It is interesting to read the following article about previous suspension of Pakistan’s constitution and whether similar situation exist today:
Pakistani state of emergency, 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_state_of_e…
Simply marvelous!
Thanks for the best part of the column ….
"Let normal political activity continue uninterrupted, the people will themselves throw up their saviours."
I would have changed it a little bit just to add "through changing mindset and priorities of majority of the people to accomplish the goal". How?? Educational institutions/ activists/lovers and nothingelse
Bull's Eye!
What a balanced & articulate reflection of current state of affairs….