Daily Times

The Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s advice to the opposition ‘not to oust the government’ must have come as a gratuitous boon to his Pakistani counterpart. It reaffirmed Turkey’s abiding goodwill for Pakistan. At the same time, however, it raises the question: whither Pakistan’s sovereignty? It also sadly reflects on our inability to resolve our own differences without outside help and advice. Furthermore, Mr Erdogan observed that if the rulers keep fighting (as do our leaders) with each other at the top, their people would get nothing but sufferings. This was a virtual snub to the Pakistani leaders ‘at the top’ by a visiting foreign dignitary. And a well-deserved one too!

Mr Gilani stood disqualified for his job as the chief executive of the country after being sentenced by the Supreme Court until the rising of the court, even for a brief 30 seconds. He, however, would, stay put, in total disregard of the Supreme Court verdict, arguing that his party or parliament alone could tell him to get up and get out. He did turn to parliament and got a voice vote of confidence for himself and an implied expression of lack of trust in the country’s judiciary at the highest level.

It is indeed for parliament to legislate and give the country its supreme body of fundamental laws: the national constitution. That is where the job of parliament ends and that of the Supreme Court begins — to interpret the law and ensure its enforcement through the executive. Regardless of his rating in the power calculus, the chief executive must obey the verdict of the Supreme Court under any circumstance. However, he has challenged the verdict of the Supreme Court to place parliament and the judiciary at odds in an eyeball-to-eyeball face off.

Realising the inadequacy of his supportive voice vote in parliament, Mr Gilani turned to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr Fehmida Mirza, to act as co-adjudicator — closer to an arbitrator– for the final verdict. Refreshingly conscious of her cardinal role as the Speaker of the House, Dr Mirza expressed her disapproval of the prime minister’s move; she would not have Mr Gilani insisting that he would abide by only her verdict in the case. She argued that the Supreme Court (alone) had ‘the right to interpret the constitution’.

Who is who in Pakistan’s parliamentary and judicial aviary? In case of a power tussle between parliament and the Supreme Court, neither would be a winner. It cannot be that Mr Gilani as an old timer and a former speaker himself would not know the consequences of his importunate behaviour. He goes for a foreign visit and at the time of his lowest rating as the country’s chief executive. He and his son, Mr Musa Gilani, happen to be at the centre of corruption cases still sub judice, therefore not permitting any comment.

Musa Gilani has been named in the notorious ephedrine case. (Ephedrine is said to be an active ingredient in the manufacture of certain narcotics.) He has submitted a ‘concise’ statement in the Supreme Court to express his ‘dissatisfaction’ over his investigating officer, an Anti-Narcotics Force Regional Officer, serving Brigadier Fahim Ahmed Khan, arguing that it would be ‘prejudicial to his case’.

It is all a question of honour that once lost cannot be restored. For the prime minister to be more concerned with the defence of his own case, and the completion of his five-year tenure, is nothing less than a snub to democracy itself. Standing side by side with his briefly estranged political ally, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, Mr Gilani challenged Mian Nawaz Sharif, chief of the mainstream opposition party, the Pakistan Muslim League-N, to move a no-confidence motion against him and President Zardari, if he so dared. He went on to declare that there was ‘no contempt of the court law in the country’.

What then was the full bench of the Supreme Court doing while finding him guilty of contempt of court? Was the bench of the Supreme Court reinventing the contempt law just to convict Mr Gilani? Should that be so, God help the country where laws could be reinvented just to punish an individual against all cannons of justice and fair play. Historically, there appears to be a sort of visceral lack of trust between the PPP and the Supreme Court. Twice, the prime minister of Pakistan, the late Benazir Bhutto, openly branded the Supreme Court as a ‘kangaroo court’. She would go on to accuse the judges of discrimination between their Punjabi and Sindhi plaintiffs. Mr Gilani called the Supreme Court the ‘Sharif Court’.

Where then does the nation stand vis-à-vis parliament, the high judiciary and the chief executive?

Where does democracy itself stand as the voice of the people and the ultimate sentinel of their inalienable right to justice and fair play? Responding to one of his foreign interlocutor’s remarks that one-third of Pakistanis wished to leave the country out of deep despair, Mr Gilani declared promptly, “Why don’t they? Who’s stopping them?” It is hard to imagine a prime minister telling, rather encouraging, his people to leave the country if they must. While urging the foreign investors to ‘focus’ on Pakistan and invest, he would dismiss their apprehensions about the security situation, which he said was ‘exaggerated’ and more of a ‘perception’. One gem of his responses to some foreign reporters was, “While the future of the some of the opposition leaders was bleak, the future of Pakistan was bright…”

More and more curious.

The writer is a retired brigadier and can be reached at brigsiddiqi@yahoo.co.uk