Daily Times

Historically, no judicial trials probably attained the level of prominence and popularity as did the trials of Socrates, Martin Luther, and Galileo. From day one, controversies haunted the proceedings of these trials and once the verdict was out, it resulted in further deepening of the crisis and the resultant divide of society. The interesting part of these trials is that the convicts gained more popularity, and the ‘crimes’ they committed, eventually became the norm.
Pakistan, within its short life span, witnessed two prominent judicial trials that also met with similar fates — the Sheikh Mujibur Rehman case of 1968, and the Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto case of 1977. The Sheikh Mujibur Rehman case generated such a huge public reaction in East Pakistan that within a year of its proceedings, it was withdrawn, and Sheikh Mujib came out of jail with full freedom to take part in the upcoming elections. The elections of 1970 presented Sheikh Mujib with an unprecedented victory and turned him from a traitor to an unchallengeable leader of the whole of East Pakistan. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, on the other hand, was not as fortunate as Sheikh Mujib was. Despite being a former prime minister and the most popular political leader of the country, his trial during the regime of military dictator General Ziaul Haq ended up with his conviction and execution. Yet the entire trial from the very beginning to its end remained highly controversial, and amidst all intimidation and influence of the military ruler, the judiciary announced a split verdict on this case. Z A Bhutto is still revered as one of the best political leaders this country ever produced, while the name of General Ziaul Haq is attached to introducing a culture that has been the cause of all sorts of extremism and human rights violations we are still facing.
After 32 years of the trial of an elected prime minister, another prime minister — this time not a deposed but a serving one — faced a judicial trial in a political scenario that was the complete opposite of the previous one. No military ruler was holding the reins and no intimidation from hidden forces was there to cast its dark shadow on the proceedings and the outcome of the case. Yet, controversies popped up and polarised society during and after the trial. Once again, an elected premier found a verdict passed against him and unlike the past, there was no dissenting note attached to it. It is a proof that the prime minister’s lawyer failed to convince the bench of seven judges that was hearing this case. A unanimous decision was expected to bring an end to the rumour mongering and controversies hovering around this case. That did not happen. No sooner was the verdict announced, a divide in the political scenario began emerging that pushed political parties and other segments of society to take sides in favour or in opposition to the PM.
Opponents, finding a new tool in their hands, lost no time to make use of it for criticising the PM’s decision to stay in power despite being convicted. Those who favoured the PM assured their all out support to him. The jiyalas (militant workers) of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) came out on the streets to condemn the verdict as if their ‘street’ power could reverse it. The lawyers’ community danced and cheered as if a battle had been won. It was no different from how a group of lawyers once rejoiced and showered rose petals on the assassin of Governor Salmaan Taseer when he was brought to court for trial.
Writing on the merits of the case and its verdict, the Islamabad-based lawyer Babar Sattar rated it as a highly political case having no legal merit. He even criticised the judiciary for having a proclivity to treat the PPP unfairly. Other writers came down hard on the PM for showing obstinacy in not tendering his resignation and saying goodbye to the premiership. The sad part of this ongoing tussle between the government and the judiciary is that not only the former but also the latter is losing its credibility of being fair and non-partisan. Long before this judgment, Asma Jahangir, the former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, voiced her disappointment against the apex court’s decision to uphold the petition on the ‘memogate’ scandal. She even questioned as to whether it was the judiciary of the people or of the establishment. Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, an ardent supporter of the freedom and restoration of the judiciary, came out frustrated last month and expressed his non-existent confidence in the whole body of the Supreme Court, and demanded the formation of a new Supreme Court to hear his case. Was this concern not more than enough to reconstitute the trial bench even if it stank of a desire to delay the proceedings? It reminds one of the comment of Ms Jahangir that she shared with the press during the memogate hearing. “I was expecting at least one dissenting voice against the judgment, but I did not see any ray of hope in the court today,” she said. I wish the time when Barrister Ahsan makes a similar comment about the judiciary does not come.
Nearly three decades are over and very little appears to have changed in the political arena of this country. The Pakistan Muslim League-N, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf, the Jamaat-e-Islami, and the SNF are hell bent to replay the role of the Pakistan National Alliance of the 1970s and launch a long march with one and only objective — oust the present government before it completes its term.
The exception this time is the behaviour of the army. The comment of the army chief that he recently made appears to be very timely and positive when he said, “The priority of a democratic system is welfare of the people, safeguarding their self-respect and establishing a society where justice is equal for all.” Instead of politicising the judicial verdict, the opposition should work for strengthening the democratic system, allow the legal process to take its own course, and avoid taking actions that may turn the trial of Prime Minister Gilani into the kind of tragedy we witnessed during the Mujibur Rehman and Z A Bhutto trials.

The writer is a freelance journalist and researcher. He can be reached at mohammad.nafees@yahoo.com