Amidst pending Panama proceedings, the government has finally decided to take Supreme Court head on by introducing the 24th constitutional amendment bill in parliament. It is yet to be seen how far the PPP and other opposition parties can go to help PML-N to get this bill passed by both the houses since the PML-N does not enjoy the minimum of two-third majority in either of the houses of the parliament in order to pass the constitutional amendment bill.
The proposed amendment seeks to add two clauses into article 184 of the constitution, which is the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The amendment bill introduces an additional remedy of appeal over original decisions of the Supreme Court, where previously the aggrieved party could only review the matter before the same bench of the Supreme Court. The amendment not only adds a right of appeal but also mandates for the composition of a larger bench for rehearing the matter.
Barring PTI, which made its position clear not to support any move that affects the pendency of Panama trial at the apex court, other political parties in the parliament are yet to draw a final policy upon the same.
The 24th Constitutional amendment bill has been introduced at the time when an important (if not the most important) case is pending before the Supreme Court with reference to an accusation of assets of Nawaz family alleged to have been acquired illegally. The proposed bill ipso facto opens a debate about its content, whose veracity may be looked into when the time comes, but the disturbing point is that it has been introduced at a time when the prime minister and his family is at the dock of the apex court, about to be questioned about the legality and the trail of the alleged assets held by the sons and daughter of Nawaz Sharif outside Pakistan.
Apparently, it seems that the potential objective is none other than to protect the letter ‘N’ in Pakistan Muslim League. It is terrible to see that the legal system has been subjected in such a way as to become a shield against any action of accountability against Sharif family. Although the same practice is nothing new, PML-N has previously used such tactics in the 90s. Instances like confrontation with judiciary are matters of undeniable historical record. This feature is not exclusive with the PML-N alone; the PPP also has its fair share in this regard. The two families of the respective political parties have been ruling the country for thirty years. And during the course of time, the legal system has been shaped up by them in such a way that instead of acting against the alleged guilty, it has become a shield to protect their interests. As rightly stated by Frederic Bastiat, “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorises it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
On a legal count, the proposed bill may still not be successful in achieving the intended objective in the light of constitutional provisions as well as judgements of the SC relating to such moves.
Article 264 states that any amendment made in the Constitution does not affect the pending matters before the Supreme Court and the same will continue as if no amendment has at all been made. This means the proposed amendment will be useful for future cases only. Cases which have been decided or are pending will not be affected by the passing of any constitutional amendment unless the amendment has been given a retrospective effect. And by the looks of the draft bill as presented in the parliament, it does not show any sign of having that effect.
On the other hand, there is a settled jurisprudence regarding the proposed amendment targeting pending cases, where not only our apex court but the courts of the US have not given a favourable response to such legislative measures. In fact, very recently the SC in the famous case of NRO categorically stated that any such move is tantamount to interference with judicial independence, which is one of the basic and fundamental features of the constitution.
Although the Panama proceedings are yet to take a decisive shape in the Supreme Court, the presentment of the bill and the hell-bent effort of the government to halt the process of accountability has exposed its intention that it can go as far as it can in order to protect interests centred on individuals.
The writer is an assistant professor at law college, University of Peshawar. He can be reached at [email protected]