JUSTICE COMPROMISEDAugust 2, 2009
“Long Live Musharraf” proudly presents a well balanced analysis by Mr. Ahmad Subhani about the credibility of Supreme Court’s recent Decision.
02nd August 2009
RAWALPINDi – Pakistan: Ex.-President, General (R.) Pervez Musharraf, was summoned by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to appear before it and offer defense in respect of his “Unconstitutional” acts committed during his reign.. However, it was a general perception even among impartial observers, that in view of the under mentioned events, the ends of justice in this case, were not likely to be met:-
1. A number of present Supreme Court judges are those who bade good to their jobs in pursuant to the proclamation of P.C.O. of November, 2007. In common parlance, they are the “offended party”. Will it be possible for them to come up with an honest decision in this case by eschewing their natural urge to avenge their humiliation at the hands of the former President?
2. Is it not a fact, that a majority of sitting judges of the Supreme Court had taken oath under the previous P.C.O. promulgated in the year 1999-200 0. It, therefore, does not behove well with them to pass judgment on the invalidity of P.C.O. issued in November, 2007.
3. Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary’s son’s case that had been referred to the Supreme Judicial Council for adjudication by the then President, Pervez Musharraf, was summarily dismissed by a bench of the Supreme Court .The detailed judgment in the case is, however, still awaited . It speaks volumes about the impartiality of the judges concerned.
4. An idea of what the fate of the present case against Pervez Musharraf was likely to be, can be had from the public pronouncement of the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, Khawaja Mohammad Sharif made on July 25th saying,” Musharraf will now face the bad time” and that, “former President should be punished for his unconstitutional steps “. What an irony as the case was sub-judice, but a senior and responsible member of the judiciary, tried to influence the proceedings of the superior court.
In view of the fore-going, it was genuinely felt, that the Supreme Court’s decision in the case under discussion, would not be what it should have been had the case was adjudicated by the judges who were not affected by the P.C.O. issued in November, 2007.
Apprehensions expressed above as to the expected judgment in the case have proved true with the judgment pronounced by the Apex court on July 31, 2009 declaring the PCO of November 2007 as ultra-virus of the constitution. All judges who took oath under the said PCO have been bundled out. All orders passed or actions executed under the said PCO have been declared null and void. Nevertheless, certain inexplicable exceptions favouring the incumbent Govt. have been made in the said ruling. For instance, oaths of the incumbent President, Prime Minister and other important dignitaries taken under the said PCO have been termed as valid. Similarly, elections held in February, 2008 under the same PCO and the Parliament elected as a result thereof, have also been validated. This has been done behind the smoke-screen, “it was necessary for the smooth and undisturbed running of affairs of the State”. Obviously, these vital exceptions to the rule have been made exclusively to favour the incumbent President and his administration. Can this be termed as justice? Is it not a mockery of justice? As a result of general perception created among the intelligentsia, they accuse the judiciary for again resorting to the much maligned ‘doctrine of necessity’ in this case as well. And the concept of a free (‘Azad’) judiciary widely propagated by the interested persons/parties has become a laughing stock in the eyes of those who understand the ground realities.