ISLAMABAD: Mian Raza Rabbani, one of the main architects of the 18th Amendment, told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that he was afraid certain unconstitutional measures might be in the offing, in the wake of the prevailing political situation.

“The impasse has led to apprehensions within parliament and the political parties represented there, that an extra constitutional step may be on the cards,” Mr Rabbani told the court on behalf of the Awami National Party (ANP) and the Balochistan National Party (Awami).

The counsel was appearing before a five-judge Supreme Court bench – headed by Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk – that had taken up 11 identical petitions challenging possible unconstitutional steps and the ongoing twin sit-ins on Constitution Avenue.

Rabbani submits three key questions; court seeks replies from PAT, PTI counsel

When the chief justice asked Mr Rabbani whether he had any basis for his views, the counsel replied that his view was based on experiences from the turbulent history of the country.

This was why, he said, he had formulated three questions in a rejoinder to the petitions he had submitted, which required the court’s energies and needed to be answered definitively.

Firstly, Mr Rabbani asked whether any political party or any other group could, at all, seek constitutional office-bearers to disengage from office under threat of violence or use of force in violation of the Constitution.

Secondly, whether any political leader could legitimately involve the Pakistan Army in his/her designs to achieve his/her unconstitutional objectives by attempting to reassure his/her followers that the army will determine the future course of his actions through a simple “yes” or “no”.

Thirdly, the counsel asked whether such a political leader could misrepresent the support of the army for his/her cause in public or private communication, thereby compromising the image of a national institution.

Considering the questions important in view of ongoing developments, the court sought answers from the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf and Pakistan Awami Tehreek counsel on these questions, saying that concise statements should be submitted within the next three days, after which, the case will be adjourned for a week.

The chief justice observed that despite the issuance of the restraining order, the apprehensions expressed by Raza Rabbani were still doing the rounds; therefore the court would like to keep the matter open.

During Wednesday’s proceedings, Justice Saqib Nisar admitted that it was the right of opposition parties to bring reforms and introduce corrective measures by making speeches critical of the government of the day and that the trend of brushing everything under the carpet should end. He said that protests are a positive means of making the people aware of their rights. But at the same time, he asked who had given protesters the authority to infringe upon the rights of others by staging sit-ins and blocking others’ right of free movement.

When Advocate Raziq Khan, representing the Pakistan Muslim League pleaded that the petitions be rejected, Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja reminded him that dismissing the petitions would also “blow the restraining order of August 15 into thin air”. The judge explained that the court would decide the matter clinically and dispassionately.

When Raziq Khan pleaded that the public was not inconvenienced by the sit-ins, but rather due to the containers placed by the administration on key thoroughfares, the chief justice observed wondered whether the counsel was trying to justify the protesters’ blocking of Constitution Avenue on the basis of that blockade.

Attorney General Salman 0 Butt told the court the government was deliberately showing restraint, despite repeated attacks on state property by the protesters. “Speaking for myself, what is being done is absolutely unconstitutional,” the AG lamented.

Published in Dawn, September 11th, 2014