Regrettable verdict

Published February 23, 2018

THE immediate implications may centre on the political future of one individual, but the judgement has the potential to be hugely disruptive to the democratic process itself.

The highest court in the land should be accorded the highest respect. Without the judiciary, the rule of law is impossible.

But — and it is with profound regret that this caveat has to be stated — the judgements of the Supreme Court of Pakistan need to promote the rule of law and constitutional democracy, not add to the national confusion.

Nawaz Sharif, already ousted from the prime minister’s office last year, has now been ousted from the presidency of the PML-N.

In its short order, a bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar has ruled that because Mr Sharif has been disqualified from parliament and because the office of president of a political party has direct implications for the composition and working of parliament, Mr Sharif is ineligible to be president of the PML-N.

The ruling is extraordinary and seemingly pits a fundamental right, Article 17 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of association, against the qualification and disqualification criteria for parliamentarians, also part of the Constitution.

Perhaps the detailed judgement, to be issued at an unspecified later date — not unusual for the superior judiciary, but an unfortunate norm that ought to be discouraged because it can create constitutional and legal uncertainty — will provide reasoning that independent analysts and jurists may find they can support.

Already, however, it is apparent that a profound departure from democratic norms is under way.

A member of parliament has the power to legislate and can be part of the federal government — power and privilege that demand exceptional scrutiny of those who possess them.

A political party has no such power and privilege, and democratic norms ought to encourage, not discourage, all members of society to be part of the political process.

Certainly, no one can be above the law, even if that person is a three-term prime minister and the head of the largest political party in the country.

But a responsibility flows in the opposite direction too: the law and its interpretation by the courts must promote justice, be fair and not person-specific.

Mr Sharif’s barbs aimed at the judiciary since his ouster last July have been unedifying and uncomfortable.

Polluting the electoral reforms package by introducing a person-specific clause to restore Mr Sharif to the position of party president was an unwise and unnecessary act on the PML-N’s part.

The responsibility of the judiciary, however, is to interpret the law, not invent it.

The retrospective effect of the court’s decision, nullifying all decisions taken by Mr Sharif since his re-election as party president, is also deeply troubling.

The judicialisation of politics should be resisted by the judiciary itself.

Published in Dawn, February 23rd, 2018

Opinion

Editorial

Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...
New terror wave
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

New terror wave

The time has come for decisive government action against militancy.
Development costs
27 Mar, 2024

Development costs

A HEFTY escalation of 30pc in the cost of ongoing federal development schemes is one of the many decisions where the...
Aitchison controversy
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

Aitchison controversy

It is hoped that higher authorities realise that politics and nepotism have no place in schools.