ISLAMABAD, March 29: Members of the federal cabinet are divided into two distinct camps on the issue of the presidential reference against the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), Mr Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, with each offering a different prescription on how best to deal with the crisis, insiders have told Dawn.
One group which is all out in support of President General Pervez Musharraf feels that the responsibility of the flare-up and the mishandling rests squarely on the shoulders of Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and his legal advisers who, they feel misjudged the timing and the modus operandi of the presidential action before proposing it.
They also feel that the prime minister did not jump to the defence of the presidential reference in the wake of the furious public outburst and joined meekly at a later stage when the president himself intervened. The president, insiders say, had to defend himself because he felt a lack of support in senior government ranks.
In fact, he had to call two meetings with members of the cabinet, lawmakers and provincial governors and chief ministers to warn them of the possible fallout of the issue and to direct them to face the brunt of the criticism by lawyers and the opposition and jointly shoulder the responsibility of responding to it.
Some of the ministers, after these two high-profile meetings with the president, have gradually come out to give the government’s point of view but even then appear restrained.
Those who have spoken after the president’s interaction include Sheikh Rashid, Zahid Hamid, Ghulam Sarwar Khan and even Awais Leghari, the son of former president Farooq Leghari, Humayun Akhtar and Rao Sikandar Iqbal. But others who chose to remain silent include Dr Sher Afgan Niazi, Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, Salim Saifullah Khan and Kamil Ali Agha.
Federal Minister for Information Muhammad Ali Durrani, who took upon himself the herculean task of defending the seemingly unpopular presidential reference, went to great lengths to defend the government. But some of his statements left a bad taste in the mouth and didn’t serve the government well when he even tried to downplay the administration’s high-handed behaviour with the non-functional CJP.
His junior minister Tariq Azeem refrained from taking centre-stage and remained a low-key voice for the government. Law minister Wasi Zafar who took much of the brunt in the beginning seems to have taken a back seat in the recent days. Perhaps, he’s been counselled to do so by his bosses after a disastrous outing or two.
A minister, who requested anonymity, said: “We feel that the president’s complaint that someone has hatched a conspiracy against him in the mishandling of the whole episode should have been clarified by the prime minister”. He further stated that the prime minister started advising presidential action against CJP after being hurt by the Supreme Court judgment in the Pakistan Steel case.
It is difficult to draw clear lines or a formal division but one group in the cabinet is pursuing a policy of silence as it feels something wrong has been done.
But other cabinet members, being staunch supporters of president, have maintained a high-profile presence in the media and were defending him from the front. They feel that any reversal or retreat on the issue would hurt the president politically, while Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz will get away unscathed.
This group has made it clear to the president he should let the prime minister and the ministers close to him take the brunt of the criticism and the opposition’s onslaught in the aftermath of their ill-advised action against the CJP. Insiders say these ministers have also advised the president not to repeat his conspiracy statement as it shows him weakened and vulnerable.
Another source, who is privy to these developments, said there was a feeling that some heads may have to roll should the government have to compromise on the presidential reference. Without elaborating further, he said: “Those who have caused this worst embarrassment to the president by their poor advice must bear the heat of its outcome”.
The prime minister’s view on what appears to be a split in his cabinet could not be ascertained.
