In different courts

In different courts

Context:

• Nawaz Sharif, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, who has been debarred from public office by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, is not just fighting back, but has been strengthened by the huge public response that he has been receiving as he takes his case to the people with elections due in the next few months.

The issue:

• Nawaz Sharif, main argument has been that his dismissal is an outrage to the will of the people, and that the Supreme Court has delegitimised their democratic voice.

Recent disqualifications:

• It is not only Mr. Sharif who has been removed from the Prime Minister’s Office by the Supreme Court.
• In recent years  in 2012 so was Yousuf Raza Gilani of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), who had been elected following Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, when the PPP formed the government in 2008.
• Moreover, following Mr. Sharif’s ouster in July 2017, one Senator of his party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN), has also been disqualified for making statements against Supreme Court judges.
• And two ministers have been issued notices for contempt of court, and asked to present themselves at the Supreme Court to explain themselves, also for making statements against the Supreme Court judges.

Military dominance:

• With Pakistan dominated by the military for many decades, all conspiracy theories regarding changes in government, or the dismissal of Prime Ministers, naturally land on the military’s door.
• Hence, many retired generals and analysts stated, without offering any proof, that Mr. Sharif’s dismissal by the Supreme Court was on the behest of the military, rather than a decision made independently by the court.

‘Doctrine of Necessity’:

• In the past when the military has rightly been seen as Pakistan’s main anti-democratic institution, it had always been the Supreme Court which provided constitutional cover to military regimes.
• Under a notion of the ‘Doctrine of Necessity’, the Supreme Court legitimised the three military takeovers — in 1958, 1977 and 1999.
• Each time, while the military regime differed as did its actions, the Court came to support such anti-democratic intervention, allowing ample space for military rule in Pakistan.
• For almost all of Pakistan’s history, the Supreme Court has been complicit in military rule in Pakistan.

Inflexion point:

• But since 2007, following great popular support, the judiciary had acquired considerable respect for its independence and pro-democratic position and statements, declaring on numerous occasions that it would never again support or condone a military takeover.
• Recent interventions have been made on a number of rape cases, of those regarding the disappeared, and even in cases of extra-judicial killings.
• Such activism has made the judiciary immensely popular in the public mind.
• The fact that the military has been publicly criticised — by scholars, social media participants and politicians — in recent years gives some indication of the relative denuding of power and hegemony of the military in Pakistan.

Conclusion:

• While Prime Ministers have been debarred and dismissed, and Ministers and Senators hauled up in front of the court, an undertrial military dictator is absconding with much ease and living in luxury abroad.
• Failing to address this key case makes one suggest that it seems that the judiciary has been more concerned with the contempt of court, rather than the contempt of the Constitution.