Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry told a visiting delegation from the Command and Staff College, Quetta, that the role of the Armed Forces was defined in Article 245 of the Constitution and that the history of the country reflected a recurring conflict between the underdeveloped political system and the well-organised Army. This, he said, was the reason why there were military interventions when there were political crises. His remarks are significant because these officers are earmarked for promotion on successful completion of the staff college course. Not only would a staff college-qualified officer carry out the coup as COAS, but the corps commanders and principal staff officers advising him at the time would also have attended the course at the relevant stage in their careers. Chief Justice Chaudhry was thus proposing a course of strict constitutionalism, which the military leadership, both present and future, would do well to heed. He was also saying, in as polite a way as possible, that the old arrangement, whereby the judiciary responded to every military intervention by a verdict in its favour, no longer held good. Instead, the Chief Justice said that the prime duty of defending the supremacy of the Constitution lay on the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and the argument that the Army was acting against the excesses of politicians had been rejected, that the Supreme Court would not accept any other institution judging that the Constitution was not being followed, and taking action. This implies, and is implied in, the concept of rule of law: that all institutions shall obey the law, and if there is any dispute about what the law actually says, it shall be decided by the courts. The government should pay attention to this, not because it implies the closure of the path of martial law, but because it implies that violations of the Constitution will be acted upon if they are taken to a competent court. However, the government continues on a path of confrontation because it is acting to protect a single individual from the effects of orders from the highest court in the land, orders which have not been delivered to target that individual, but in verdicts which result from its desire to ensure the rule of law, and to make sure that the proceeds of corruption are regurgitated by anyone committing the corruption.