THE response by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chief Imran Khan and Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan on the killing of mass murderer Hakeemullah Mehsud further strengthens the belief that the PTI and PML-N are ideologically similar and on the same side of the current political divide.

It also reflects the fact that both government and opposition are represented by political minds that are unable to respond to this kind of a situation in a mature and dignified manner. These two leaders were dejected, heartbroken and puzzled by Mehsud’s killing and opted to expose these feelings before the media in an attempt to muster public support by misleading the nation on the drones’ issue and playing on anti-US sentiments.

The problem is that such politicians don’t bother to prepare notes before going to the public. I am sure that if the two leaders had consulted even a section officer of the respective law divisions before making these public announcements they would have become aware of their constitutional and legal limits.

The interior minister’s stand regarding the revising of diplomatic ties with the US was misplaced and beyond his ministerial domain. It is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that has to deal with matters related to foreign policy.

The stance taken by the PTI chief to block Nato supplies is without constitutional mandate or authority. The Fourth Schedule of the Constitution sets out that external affairs are a federal subject falling under the jurisdiction of the federal government and the provinces have no business to interfere, restrict or create hurdles in these affairs.

It is also unfair of politicians to use judicial verdicts for the purposes of profile-raising. Imran Khan’s reference to a judgement issued earlier this year by the Peshawar High Court was a misinterpretation of the verdict.

According to the judgement, the court declared the drone strikes a blatant violation of international and local laws and a war crime. It directed the federal government to take the matter before the Security Council by filing a proper complaint and to makes efforts towards the constitution of an independent war crime tribunal to investigate and inquire into the damage caused by the drone strikes.

The court directed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to prepare a draft resolution to present before the UN Security Council and the General Assembly with the purpose of obtaining a resolution condemning the drone strikes and the violation of Pakistan’s territory that is against the UN Charter and various UN conventions.

The court further directed the government to sever all ties with the US, in case the US authorities did not comply with such a resolution, and as a mark of protest deny all logistic and other facilities to the US within Pakistan.

The fact of the matter is that the court directed the federal government to take all necessary measures in the UN to stop the drone attacks before initiating any action. This judgement does not provide a mandate to any political party to take the law into its own hands.

The PHC judgement can also be seen in the light of the Dossani Travels case decision rendered by the Supreme Court. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the high courts, being the apex courts in the provinces, had limited jurisdiction vis-à-vis policy matters that were to be dealt, exclusively, by the executive branch of the state.

Under Article 189 of the Constitution, the decision of the Supreme Court, to the extent where it pertains to a question of the law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, is binding on all other courts in Pakistan

The UN possesses a juridical personality in the global community. This means that the world body is legally eligible to form contracts, acquire movable and immovable property and also to institute legal proceedings anywhere including within Pakistan.

The International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) led by Nato forces provides assistance to the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan under various resolutions adopted by the Security Council after 9/11. Hence, it enjoys the protection of The United Nations (Privilege and Immunities) Act 1948. Contrary to common belief, Nato is a united force comprised of 28 allied states and has many non-member allies including Pakistan.

Under the circumstances, any action taken by the KP government to stop, restrict or to create hurdles in Nato/Isaf supplies would not only be devoid of any legal and constitutional authority it may also result in political and administrative chaos.

In that case, the federal government would have the constitutional mandate to take the reins of the provincial government. And that could lead to other interventions in the democratic process.

The writer is a lawyer.

Twitter: @faisal_fareed