22 July, 2014 / Ramazan 23, 1435

zardari_reuters-670
President Asif Ali Zardari. — File Photo by Reuters

ISLAMABAD, Oct 19: Although the 16-year-old saga of the ISI doling out funds to politicians in the 1990s finally ended on Friday with the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Asghar Khan case, apprehensions are being expressed if the verdict marks the end of political activities in the presidency forever.

In a four-page short order, the court accepted that the mandate of the PPP had been stolen in the 1990 elections, but at the same it observed that the president was expected to rise above political leanings and play an impartial role.

Legal observers who always pounce on every opportunity to dissect court’s verdicts appear to be divided on the question of whether the judgment would have any binding effect on President Asif Zardari. “Instead of reaching a conclusion we should wait for the detailed judgment,” they said.

“In a parliamentary system of governance, the president being head of the state represents the unity of the republic under Article 41 of the Constitution. And as per the oath of his office, in all circumstances, he will do right to all manner of people, according to the law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. Thus holder of office of president violates the constitution if he fails to treat all manner of people equally and without favouring any set, according to law and, as such, creates/provides an occasion which may lead to an action against him under the Constitution and the law,” the judgment said.

“The paragraph in the judgment is problematic as it can be interpreted in a way that may translate into imposing restriction on the president to preside over or attend political activities of a party he belongs to,” said a senior lawyer who did not want to be named.

“If what I understood is correct then the president needs to give a second thought on his plan to address a rally scheduled for Oct 25 in Mandi Bahuddin (Punjab). Besides, the judgment may also bar the president from playing an active supervisory role in the ensuing general elections,” he said.

The judgment clearly imposed a ban on the president from getting involved in political activities, former president of the Balochistan High Court Bar Hadi Shakeel said. “It is time that the president should quit the political office of PPP co-chairman,” he said, adding that the Lahore High Court was seized with a petition seeking contempt proceedings against the president for holding dual office.

But Advocate Chaudhry Faisal Hussain was of the opinion that the judgment had no direct binding effect on President Zardari because it came against the backdrop of allegations that a political cell had been created in the presidency to manipulate the 1990 elections and stop former prime minister Benazir Bhutto from forming a government at the centre.

A new petition, he said, would be needed if someone wanted to restrict Mr Zardari from presiding over political meetings in the presidency.

During the course of proceedings, Attorney General Irfan Qadir had reminded the three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry that the Constitution never barred the president from heading a political party.

He contended that it was not mentioned in the oath of office of the president, the prime minister, the federal minister or a provincial minister that they should not indulge in politics. It was specifically mentioned with regard to members of the armed forces and the judiciary (code of conduct), he said.

“No judge, including the chief justice, has been mandated to regulate political functions which the president as of right can pursue,” he said.

Mr Qadir also reminded that President Zardari was not in any way posing threat to dislodging a duly-elected government either at the federal or at the provincial level because at present there was no article like 58(2b) which used to be invoked in the past to send elected governments packing.

More From This Section

Comments (10) (Closed)


Abdul Waheed
Oct 20, 2012 10:26am
Perhaps the motive behind giving this judgement is to tighten the noose on Zardari.
Iqbal
Oct 20, 2012 10:40am
Honorable court should name the beneficiaries and ban them from politics for ever
khanm
Oct 20, 2012 11:54am
it is beyond me how can the president be neutral if he belongs to the ruling party.... we need to revamp our constitution and make sure that the constitution is written by the people who have no involvement in the goverment none what so ever.
Sajid
Oct 20, 2012 12:12pm
In the history of nations, rulings like these leave a far-reaching effect, not felt immediately. Well done. Zardari should now finally be the head of state, and not a Jiyala.
M Rafique
Oct 20, 2012 05:55am
Well done leaving beneficiaries of distributed funds totally free.
asim
Oct 21, 2012 01:59am
SC order also calls for legal action against the recipients of fund.The onus is on Government to initiate necessary action.
Hassan Zaeem Aftab
Oct 20, 2012 11:39pm
What is being followed/practised in India is exactly in line with the orders of Our Hon Supreme Court. If India can do then Why cant we?
Husain Bulman
Oct 20, 2012 08:31pm
Nawaz Sharif the biggest beneficiary of the 1990 elections should be tried in court
Observer
Oct 20, 2012 03:31pm
Pakistan is most favourable to Presidential form of government since its inception. Mohammad Ali Jinnah laid the foundation stone for Presidential form of government by choosing to become Governor General and not PrimeMinisterof this newly born country.
Jahanzeb K. Mubejo
Oct 20, 2012 03:20pm
“No judge, including the chief justice, has been mandated to regulate political functions which the president as of right can pursue,” he said. This is not Kingdom ship, the Constitution of Pakistan has given fundamental rights to the People of Pakistan whose sympathy is being considered mandate. Chief Justice is not regulating the office of President but is protecting rights of people of Pakistan by making arrangements for transparency to avoid future electoral frauds. The Constitution of Pakistan has set the Judiciary Independent and CJ requires not a mandate to protect Peoples' rights.