Alert Sign Dear reader, online ads enable us to deliver the journalism you value. Please support us by taking a moment to turn off Adblock on

Alert Sign Dear reader, please upgrade to the latest version of IE to have a better reading experience



Your Name:

Recipient Email:

The image shows a judge’s hammer. — File photo

ISLAMABAD, Oct 21: The Supreme Court verdict, which censured former army chief Aslam Beg and former head of ISI Asad Durrani for rigging the 1990 elections and directed the PPP government to investigate the politicians named in the scam through the Federal Investigation Agency, has divided public opinion across the country and independent political observers and neutral legal experts are of the opinion that coming days may witness an intensification in political polarisation.

More specifically, they said, the ruling PPP and the opposition PML-N would get involved in further mudslinging as was witnessed on Sunday when Leader of Opposition Chaudhry Nisar lashed out at the PPP and Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf continued his tirade which he launched against the PML-N immediately after the Supreme Court verdict.

They also criticised the judgment which, according to them, had pitted the two major political parties against each other, instead of addressing the real issue of military’s repeated interferences in politics.

“For me which politician got how much money back in 1990 is a secondary issue at the moment. The real issue is that no such incident should happen again which unfortunately is being ignored and politicians have started point scoring against each other,” commented columnist I.A. Rehman.

He said that all over the world politicians learned from their past experiences and moved ahead by setting up truth and reconciliation commissions, but unfortunately after this court judgment it seemed they were returning back to the 90s. They (politicians) should have reacted sensibly.

In response to a question, Mr Rehman said much of the facts relating to the ISI distributing funds among politicians had already been established in the court regardless of the fact which politician got what, and new investigations would only create political bitterness.

Justice (retd) Tariq Mehmood was more specific when he referred to the paragraph 14 of the judgment in which the court had directed the FIA to collect evidence against politicians who had allegedly received donations to spend on election campaign but, “according to my understanding the FIA has no such mandate”. It’s confusing, he said.

Justice Tariq said that while the SC in paragraph 13 of the ruling detailed how a wrong had been committed in the 1990 election, it asked the federal government to take necessary steps under the Constitution and law against the guilty parties.

“It means the nature of offences that were committed by different parties are yet to be determined, then how come the court can straightway direct the FIA to carry out investigations,” said Mr Tariq.

When his attention was drawn to PML-N’s reservations over the SC directive over investigation by the FIA, he said that as the aggrieved party its leadership could approach the court and seek its review.

Saddened by the acrimony generated by the judgment, Justice Tariq said if sense didn’t prevail among the quarters concerned and they only used it to settle political scores against each other the country was set for a bitter political bickering in coming weeks.

Asad Jamal, another legal expert, said: “Ideally speaking the court should have asked the government to take up the issue in parliament and decide it once for all and should lay down broader principles that such bad practices are not repeated.”

However, he said, with the court specifically asking the PPP-led government to use the FIA for investigation against PML-N leaders was sure to create a lot of political heat.

“Who doesn’t know that the two parties are against each other and any such ruling will have major political repercussions which could also hurt democracy in the end,” Mr Asad said.

Comments (7) Closed

M.Qureshi Oct 22, 2012 06:51pm
I completely disgree with some expert comments that corrupt politicians should be left scot free. Those who are recommending it are showing a criminal mentality tat is regretable.
baakhlaq Oct 22, 2012 07:21am
this acrimony will need some third party to reconcile the two. the best thing is that the courts should not take the political cases because even the best judgments are latter politicized and courts are maligned just for nothing.
Shafqaat Oct 22, 2012 03:36pm
The court has given a valid, up to the mark and ideal verdict in this case.
Amir Bangash Oct 22, 2012 09:20pm
People with dual nationality must have all the rights like other citizens including the right to vote but due to security reasons, should not be assigned sensitive posts or to contest the election for PA/NA. All those in some position to loot national money and possess large amounts in their foreign accounts should be asked to declare assets and if they have greater amount than their legal means, then they should be asked to return the money or face termination of their Pakistani nationality. Same procedure may be adopted in the cases of high profile criminals and absconders who have run away from the country with out facing courts.
Ahmed Oct 22, 2012 10:11pm
Articles like these prevent justice from prevailing in Pakistan.
beg Oct 22, 2012 07:48pm
I donot know why judgement can hurt democracy.why some folks keep saying this will hurt democracy like bringing the crime comitter to justice and investigating them rather than strenthening the democracy is to some people is weaking doesnot make other words these folks are saying donot touch the major political parties and their leaders since it will derail democracy.I think these people are wrong ang supreme court is doing the right thing by doing justice because once the true justice is implemented and prevailed then democracy will prevail
beg Oct 22, 2012 07:54pm
so you are saying even if crimes of bribery,murder or any other crimes are committed ,supreme court should not take them because they have political envelope/garb and the judgement will be politicised.this logic is illogical and irrational and has fear of political parties underlying this thought or may be sympathy for the corrupt political parties