Daily Times

Prime Minister of Pakistan Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani has so far proved to be a good sandbag, taking the legal bullets and not letting them recoil to hit President Zardari — the real target. He has to be disqualified at least before his next term.

The real eyesore of the establishment and urban middle and ruling classes is Mr Zardari. Mr President, as I had written in one of my columns, is not a good friend of Asif Ali Zardari. He does not care about the urban middle class and media perception, which despises his cronyism, alleged past and present corruption and his clever political outmaneouvring of all other political foes. Leaders of this breed cannot fathom that urban public perception counts. Remember, villages make governments and cities undo them. But PPP leaders see it differently. They believe that the present coalition will win to form the government again because their rural support is still intact thanks to the flow of money from the urban economy to the rural areas.

Two years ago in April 2010, I had written in this space: “Fade the lights on the president and move the spotlight on the prime minister; this is how a director of a Pakistan political show would shout in his mike. Not only has the Constitution (18th Amendment) Act 2010 transferred those powers to Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, the ongoing pressure of the Supreme Court has been also moved on him.”

Finally, the curtain dropped on Act 1 of this thrilling political-cum-legal drama with the conviction of the prime minister for contempt of court. He has committed contempt by not implementing the Supreme Court order because he believes that the president has immunity, but had not ridiculed the court as said in the judgement.

Now in Act 2, we hear the cacophonous demand by a section of the media and opposition politicians that since the conviction, it is the moral responsibility of the PM to resign. However, morality and politics, we know, have little compatibility.

People tend to forget that all decisions in such cases are political, hence expecting a moral response from the convicted prime minister is asking for the moon. There was no doubt that even if he was convicted, he would avail the maximum time given to him within the legal framework. That is what he seems to be doing. Mr Zardari has so far managed to delay his exit successfully in spite of all odds and here we are only 10 months from the general elections.

Both the government and the judiciary have been shilly-shallying. They are not prepared to catch the bull by the horns. In the first place, the government has not raised the issue with the court regarding immunity enjoyed by the president as stated in Article 248 of the constitution. The court has indirectly tried to lure the government to raise this issue so that they can use their right to interpret this law. The government and its lawyers have been talking about the immunity given to the president but they do not want to take it to the court. One leading politician from the ruling coalition retorted, “Why the government should take the issue to the court for interpretation when it is clearly enshrined in the constitution. It is like me going to the court and asking permission about my fundamental right of freedom of expression.”

Many in the government are also paranoid about the courts’ mood and claim that the moment they will raise this issue directly, the interpretation would be given that in civil cases the president does not enjoy immunity. To prove their point, they quote the statement of Justice (Retd) Ramday who maintained this stance. Interestingly, this was the only time Justice Ramday decided to speak his mind from his hermitage. The unity of thought among the honourable judges in these cases is amazing. Here it may be recalled that in spite of all the tricks in his bag, Ziaul Haq was unable to get a unanimous verdict against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. The former prime minister was hanged despite the split decision — four in favour and three against.

Both the institutions of the state are also reluctant to ask the Lahore High Court to start a retrial of the Cotecna and SGS case. The honourable Supreme Court struck it down during Nawaz Sharif’s government. A question arises that unless the case, which was sent back as a mistrial, is reopened and the accused are declared guilty, what would be the basis of the money laundering case in Switzerland?

Legal experts bet that the Supreme Court is likely to rule that the president cannot invoke immunity in this case. Evidently, by insisting that a letter should be written to the Swiss authorities to reopen the case, the Supreme Court has implicitly maintained that the president does not enjoy immunity for his past sins.

The honourable option for the president and the prime minister would have been to step down and contest the case. However, in politics honourable deeds are few and far between. President Clinton adopted this course in the Monika Lewinsky case and the Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi followed this strategy until he had to step down under pressure caused by the economic crisis.

However, in the forefront of this tussle would now be Prime Minister Gilani. The moral argument is that by following the NRO implementation case, the Supreme Court wants to set an example that even the head of state cannot hide behind the immunity fortress if he/she has done wrong. Nobody can dispute this assertion.

But there is another narrative also that keeping the spirit of the high moral ground, the Supreme Court could disqualify Nawaz Sharif for accepting money from the ISI as alleged in the Asghar Khan petition. Therefore, Mr Sharif should be careful in supporting court verdicts that lead to disqualifying political leaders. In the past, the military used to disqualify leaders; this time around, it could be the courts as they have almost the same powers as that of the Vilayat-e-Faqih in Iran.

Meanwhile the Supreme Court has reportedly written to the president that to complete its strength two retired judged be appointed, one on ad-hoc and one on permanent basis. The Bar Council’s Vice-Chairman, Akhtar Husain has objected to this plea on the ground that the council has always been against the appointment of ad-hoc judges. The Supreme Court will need at least one new judge to form the full court to hear the appeal against conviction of the prime minister in the contempt case.

Verily, a coup that comes through the barrel of the gun cannot be stopped by judgments and constitutional clauses. But a constitutional coup brought by angry men in black who have taken upon themselves the cleansing of corrupt political leaders at the top is slow and has no bar. It is going to leave the field open for those who have never been in power and hence have clean hands so far. Imran Khan must be gloating on such developments.

The writer can be reached at ayazbabar@gmail.com