THE contempt of court against Yousuf Raza Gilani has proven, if there was ever any doubt, that the rule of law is nothing more than the contempt of the people. Take the complete picture to understand that Yousuf Raza Gilani can continue to rule us despite his conviction, while still remaining under the law.

The Supreme Court issued a short order on April 26 and the full judgment 12 days later but it does not restrain him from remaining in office until final judgment on his appeal. No law says it should, although every order the prime minister issues now on as the chief executive will be of doubtful legality.

The full judgment goes to the speaker and she does nothing (being within the law). After 30 days, the matter goes to the chief election commissioner. You can’t blame him if he takes full three months to decide the matter.

When the chief election commissioner does, there will be an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court (under the law). The court may take a long time. (It took two years to note that its judgment on NRO case had not been implemented.)

Then count on Aitzaz Ahsan to get postponements (under the law). The contempt case took 20 hearings. In one case against Benazir Bhutto, he is said to have as many as 150 postponements to save her from conviction.

Asma Jahangir says the contempt case may take as long as a year and a half. The law will take its course. So, don’t be shocked if Gilani is still the prime minister when parliament completes its term.

Everything will be in accordance with the rule of law. Even if he had got imprisonment for full six months, he could still continue to work as the prime minister from jail, as Aitzaz claims. After all, which law says he can’t?

Don’t make noise about morality. You want nothing but the rule of law and there is no law to enforce morality.

What is law to begin with? The Constitution does not require that parliament should pass every law with a majority of its total members. Under the Article 55, the National Assembly needs only “majority of the members present and voting” to pass a law, as long as at least one-fourth of the total members are there in the house (at least 86 out of 342).

Only 51 per cent of them are needed to pass any law. In practical terms, whatever half of them (44) say is the law. And people want the entire country to obey whatever these few members decide?

Suppose 43 MNAs get together to pass a law to allow same-sex marriages? You will jump to protest that they cannot do it because Article 227 requires that “no law shall be enacted which is repugnant” to the Holy Quran and Sunnah.

Now, here lies the rub. You are saying that the provisions of the Holy Quran overrule all laws. In other words, you want the Islamic values to be superior to any law that goes against it.

Now, Islamic values do not allow the ruler to do anything improper. No immunity for anybody, no matter how high. No misuse of public funds. No kickbacks, no bribes, no nepotism, no appointment against merit or in violation of the rules. No permission for objectionable behavior by anyone. No ostentatious lifestyle. No obscenity or vulgarity on media or in public.

Life is already quite difficult with a ban on gambling and drinking. It will be unbearable with the enforcement of all these values. So, you will continue with ‘the rule of law’, no matter how outrageous and absurd it may be.

MUHAMMAD ABD AL-HAMEED Lahore

Commendable verdict QUESTIONS on the detailed judgment are primarily twofold. Firstly, why was the prime minister sentenced for only 30 seconds (approximately)? Secondly, what is the impact of the judgment on the office of the prime minister?

In law the timeframe of the sentence is irrelevant. The only question of importance is whether a person is convicted or acquitted. Different convicts may have different punishments for a similar crime e.g., a suspended sentence, a sentence of two years imprisonment, a sentence of a fine, a sentence of 30 seconds until the rising of the court respectively. But once convicted they all are in the same category, i.e., they are all convicts.

What must be noted is the wording used in the per curiam short order of the which stated “...the conviction for contempt of court recorded are likely to entail some serious consequences in terms of Article 63 (1) (g) of the Constitution which may be treated as mitigating factors towards the sentence passed against him.”

It is also necessary to reproduce Article 63 (1) (g) of the Constitution referred in the judgment which states a ground for disqualification from being a member of parliament:

“(g) he has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or the integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary or the armed forces of Pakistan, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release.” (emphasis added).

The wording of the judgment as per my personal interpretation connects the above two questions as it clearly establishes the prime minister is convicted of contempt and strongly implies the aftermath of the conviction, i.e., the prime minister may suffer serious consequences under Article 63 (1) (g) which could only mean disqualification as a member of the National Assembly, rendering the prime minister unable to hold office of the chief executive.

The court has referred in paragraph 70 of the judgment as well as in the short order to the prime minister bringing the judiciary into ridicule, and therefore, the prime minister, upon announcement of the judgment automatically stands disqualified from his parliamentary seat, and hence ipso facto cannot hold office of the chief executive.

Another related query is whether under Article 63 (2) the matter must be referred to the speaker of the National Assembly first, who would in turn refer the matter within 30 days to the Election Commission who in turn would decide the matter within 90 days?

It is my opinion that the judgment of the Supreme Court is crystal clear and the prime minister automatically stands disqualified, hence the ‘question’ of disqualification itself does not arise, therefore, the same need not be referred to the speaker of the National Assembly.

In any event, I am certain when/if this issue is taken up before the Supreme Court they will interpret the matter beyond any complication. A final thought I would like to mention pertains to a question many people have asked me, i.e., why did the Supreme Court not disqualify the prime minister from holding office in the judgment itself? The answer is very simple. This matter before the Supreme Court only concerned the issue of contempt of court, and all the Supreme Court could decide is whether or not the prime minister was guilty of contempt, which is exactly what it did.

Had the Supreme Court directly disqualified the prime minister from holding office it would have travelled beyond the scope of the proceedings, whereas by not doing so the apex court has very carefully and commendably issued a flawless judgment.

OSMAN A. HADI (Advocate) Karachi