ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s approbation of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan’s demand to appoint a Supreme Court commission to investigate allegations of rigging in the 2013 general election has left the legal community bewildered.

Dragging the top court into the centre of a political maelstrom at such a crucial juncture, they reason, will only serve to demean the judiciary, making it controversial and shaking the people’s confidence in it.

In a televised interview on Tuesday, Imran Khan made a fresh demand, asking for the prime minister’s resignation, the installation of a caretaker government of technocrats and the institution of an inquiry by the Supreme Court into rigging allegations, saying he had complete confidence in the incumbent Chief Justice, Justice Nasirul Mulk.

In his address to the nation on Tuesday night, the PM acquiesced and said that his government was willing to request the Supreme Court to appoint a three-judge inquiry commission.

Lawyers warn that involving Supreme Court will politicise judiciary and deprive petitioners of the right to appeal

“Political issues should always be resolved at political forums – the best medium being the floor of the parliament,” Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) Vice-Chairman Mohammad Ramzan Chaudhry told Dawn.

“The Supreme Court, being a neutral, impartial and independent institution that sits at the top of the judicial hierarchy, should steer clear of these muddy waters since this will only make it controversial,” he said.

The Supreme Court was only meant to adjudicate upon appeals and cases, not to hold full-fledged inquiries since there would be no forum of appeal left for any decision in the matter, he said.

In addition, the results of the inquiry are bound to attract criticism and finger-pointing by the losing party. This is crucial to avoid because Imran Khan has already dragged former chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and former Supreme Court judge Khalilur Rehman Ramday into the fray by accusing them of having a role in poll rigging, he said.

Those appointed members of the commission will definitely be criticised because they will either have been elevated to the Supreme Court by the former chief justice, or at the very least, will have had a professional relationship with Justice Ramday, the vice chairman said.

Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Kamran Murtaza, on the other hand, described the proposal as a suggestion “alien to the law and the Constitution”.

“Even if the inquiry commission finally concludes that the 2013 elections were rigged, how can the results of the 2013 elections be undone or called into question, except by an election petition presented to an election tribunal under Article 225 of the Constitution,” he asked, rhetorically.

These are childish demands, not rooted in the law, he said, adding that the prime minister direly needed a law minister in his cabinet, as someone had been giving him spurious advice.

Former SCBA president and retired justice Tariq Mehmood said that the setting up of a judicial commission would only open a Pandora’s Box, adding that the proceedings of the commission would be a very long-drawn exercise.

“In the end, the commission will become redundant without providing much-needed answers,” he said, adding that the only solution to the prevailing crisis was political dialogue.

Published in Dawn, Aug 13th, 2014