Look at these headlines: "Let the parliament do away with President's immunity (under Article 248), Swiss cases will be reopened"; "Let the Supreme Court interpret Article 248 and if anyone has any objection, he should go the court." These headlines, in fact, are statements given by no less than the Prime Minister, Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani, on the floor of the National Assembly.
Now, we go through another headline attributed to the learned Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. It says: "No clash between institutions", says CJ. The news item under this headline starts with an observation made by his lordship which goes like this, " The Chief Justice said that there is no clash between the institutions and they (Supreme Court judges) are determined to strengthen democracy and safeguard the parliament for which the nation has struggled for two years."
Now let us see what do these headlines and news item denote? The first as well as the final impression, formed from the statements given by the two chiefs of the most pivotal institutions, is that despite the negative propaganda unleashed by vested interests, there is nothing on the ground to suggest that the system is on its way to derailment.
The fact is that the institutions that form the very edifice of national solidarity, are conducting their affairs with discreet wisdom and with respect for each other.
More laudable is the role played by the Gilani government in particular, since it has never shown impatience or rash impulsiveness in inter-institution relationships. This is exactly in line with the established approach of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) that is the only major party that has been bowing before the courts and the worthy judges from its beginning, ie from the days of its founder chairman, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Shaheed.
Even the present statement, given by Prime Minister Gilani, advising the critics to seek interpretation of Article 248 from the apex court, is an extension of his repeated expression of trust and confidence in the judiciary. The same is the record of President Asif Ali Zardari, Co-Chairman, PPP, who has never ever uttered a word of defiance for the courts, more so for the superior judiciary.
This is something that every true democrat does. No individual or party, having roots among the masses and enjoying public mandate through the four corners of the country, needs to speak the language of confrontation. Nor is it possible for a true democrat to adopt an aggressive posture, given the fact that the language of the people behind them is that of tolerance, peace and moderation.
Now comes the question of Article 248, especially its provision at proviso (2) that deals with presidential immunity. The Prime Minister's categorical declaration that the President enjoys immunity given by the parliament, is not without substance. It is rather the consensus opinion of a vast majority of politicians, both within the parliament and outside it.
Senior politicians from different parties and media analysts, carrying big names, too opine that there is absolutely no confusion that the President enjoys immunity from being tried for a criminal charge in a court during the incumbency of his presidential office. One media senior quotes the instance of a French president, who had once remained a mayor of a city prior to becoming the head of state.
There were allegations against him for recruiting personnel, by transgressing his powers, while performing his duties as the mayor. During the course of his trial, he became the President. Then afterwards, the court proceedings were stopped against that president of France till the time he remained in the presidential office.
This is a usual practice in some democracies that is of giving respect to the dignified office of the head of state, which should not be misconstrued as undue protection or favour. Taking it in another way, respecting a President, who enjoys the electoral support of all the provincial assemblies, both the houses of the parliament as well as the backing of millions of voters, is not an odd thing to do.
Nor is it against the accepted norms of democracy. Those who are eager to see President Asif Ali Zardari facing indictments and court appearances in the same manner that he had been facing for more than a decade, should wait for a few more years till Zardari completes his tenure and leaves the Aiwan-e-Sadr.
However, for these ill-wishers of Asif Ali Zardari, one can only proffer one sane calculation: if nothing could be proved against Zardari during his 10 to 11 years of unjust and unjustified incarceration, how many more decades would be additionally required to prove him wrong or a culprit (as per the wishes of these ill-wishers)?
Why can't this lot try some democratic method to fulfil their negative designs? Why don't they work like the PPP leaders to make their way into the hearts and minds of the people, so that the latter should return them to the assemblies and thus to political power, leaving little room for the opponents (here it means the PPP leadership) to be in the saddle.
This lobby should also give weight to the latest statement given by one of the most eminent jurists of world fame, Aitzaz Ahsan, who has unequivocally clarified that the apex court has not passed an order for initiating Swiss cases trial (or re-trial).
And this lobby should also answer one crucial question and that is: Aren't these people reinforcing the impression that popular and public-friendly Sindhi leaders are always destined to be imprisoned, assassinated or executed? And then how can a law or a provision of a Constitution be struck down without the consent of the parliament and the parliamentarians, the true representatives of the popular will?
Comments
Comments are closed.