On July 16, a Supreme Court bench issued a notice to the Prime Minister “to appear personally” on January 19 to explain why he should not be proceeded against for contempt of the court.
The same day, the PPP with the support of its coalition partners viz ANP, MQM and PML-Q managed to pass a pro-democracy resolution on the National Assembly indirectly sending out a message that the government enjoys the confidence of the majority of the elected representatives in the Assembly.
On January 19, the Prime Minister appeared before a larger bench of the Supreme Court. He stuck to his stand not to comply with courts’ directives to write a letter to the Swiss Court withdrawing the earlier communication sent to it by the former Attorney General, Malik Qayyum. The reason for non-compliance, the PM said, was because of the immunity the President enjoyed under Article 248 of the Constitution. Aitzaz Ahsan, who appeared before the court as Mr Gilani’s counsel, argued against the sending of the letter, because of this immunity under the Constitution and raised the point that it needs to be determined if at all a contempt of the court had been committed by the PM. Earlier, he has been on record as having said in TV talk shows that the letter in question should be sent to the Swiss Courts, as per the court directive. He asked for more time to study the case. The next hearing of the case was fixed by the court on February 1.
The case boils down to three focal points:
One. Does the President intrinsically enjoy full immunity under Article 248, or needs to seek the exercise of this privilege, from the Supreme Court, keeping in view the nature or character of the cases or charges pending against him?
Two. If the Supreme Court is the final authority to interpret provisions of the Constitution, can its verdict in a particular case revolving around an Article of the Constitution be questioned or ignored?
Three. If the said court verdict is defied (after due opportunity to the affected party or parties to be heard), how will it be enforced if the executive refuses to cooperate?
It is unfortunate that a tainted President has chosen to challenge the Supreme Court, giving a political colour to the case by saying that he would not agree to accept the court directive about the writing of the letter to the Swiss Court “come what may” and that compliance would amount to a “trial of Benazir’s grave.” (Earlier a loud-mouthed PPP lawyer’s licence was suspended by the Supreme Court for daring to question and ridicule its verdict on the NRO review petition.)
It has to be conceded that the federal government led by the PPP leadership is a hard nut to crack. It is not only the higher judiciary that this government has decided to confront, but it also has entered into a conflictual relationship with the military.
The Prime Minister has sacked the Defence Secretary on dubious grounds and the incumbent, a retired Lt General has approached the Islamabad High Court against the PM’s order. Earlier, the Prime Minister went out of the way to speak to a Chinese media outlet unabashedly accusing the COAS and DG ISI of unconstitutional and illegal conduct on the ground that they submitted their statements to the Supreme Court violating the government’s procedural requirements. The top brass is naturally unhappy and upset at this serious charge against the senior-most military officers and the way the matter has been publicised. It would be relevant here to refer to a TV interview of Aitzaz Ahsan in which he categorically stated that the Prime Minister’s stand against the Army Chief and head of the ISI was “wrong”. It may also be mentioned that earlier, in their judgment, the Supreme Court had noted that the replies submitted on behalf of the COAS and DG ISI were duly filed before the court through the Attorney General and their affidavits were delivered by the Defence Ministry to the office of the Attorney General. The ball is now in the PM’s court. He has to admit that it was unwise and impolitc on his part to cast serious aspersions on the military leadership, which has not only expressed their unhappiness, but also indicated the possibility of “potentially grievous consequences.” Meanwhile, the memogate case is hotting up. Ijaz Mansoor, earlier reported to be hesitant to come to Pakistan, has got his visa and is expected to appear before the Commission next week.
The findings of the Commission will have far-reaching consequences about the future of the civil-military relations and, in particular, about the future fortunes of the PPP leadership, currently in power.
Chickens are fast coming home to roost for the PPP government. It has excelled in forging crises and deflecting the attention of the economically ravaged people from the crippling problems created by poor governance, rampant corruption and widespread lawlessness. It sought to flaunt a policy of conciliation and consensus, but has ended up with a situation where it finds itself at loggerheads with the army, the judiciary, most of the media and, by and large, the people of Pakistan.
Does it have the moral strength to face the force of law and the pressures emanating from the barrel of the gun? Being the product of an unsavoury bargain midwifed by the USA, it may be leaning on Washington for support, as indeed Hilary Clinton’s recent remarks indicate.
Imran Khan made a telling point the other day when he said that a government - which had come into existence on the basis of an immoral or illegal law and which has been declared null and void by the highest court of the country - has no right to continue.
With all its bravado (dragging Benazir’s grave into the fray, for instance) and turning the presidency into a political arena not befitting the role the Constitution assigned to the head of State, will ultimately fail to stand before the majesty of law, the establishment and the wrath of the people.
The sad part of the story is that instead of availing of the opportunity to establish that democracy stands for the people’s rights and welfare, by sheer incompetence and “tomfoolery (as the court put it), it has unwittingly contributed towards discrediting the democratic order itself.
Hopefully the supremacy of the law and its guardian the Supreme Court, will prevail and after the next elections, Pakistan will move steadily on the democratic path with the military increasingly confining itself to the role prescribed for it in the Constitution.
The writer is an ex-federal secretary and ambassador, and  political and international relations analyst.
Email: pacade@brain.net.pk