A risky route

The PPP core committee's meeting on Thursday declared that the Federation had submitted its reply to the Supreme Court in the memo scandal case, which should be taken as the President's reply. And that the President would not file a statement, as demanded by the court, because he enjoys immunity under the Constitution, affirming also that no letter would be written to the Swiss courts for the same reason. The court has said on an earlier occasion that the Constitution does not bestow automatic immunity on the president in office; it has to be invoked. According to constitutional experts the President does enjoy immunity, however, the authority to interpret the Constitution lies only with the judiciary. The core committee's decisions signal an unsavoury confrontation between state institutions, threatening to undermine the democratic process. President Zardari may have soothed some frayed nerves as he averred in a recent private TV channel interview that there is no confrontation between the government and the judiciary or the army. Though when asked whose decisions would he accept in the ongoing investigations being simultaneously carried out by the Parliamentary Committee on National Security and the Supreme Court, he said he would accept only the committee's decision adding that "I believe the Parliament is sovereign." The President also offered a philosophical view of the developing situation saying "you think it is a fight; it is a part of evolution. It will evolve and will simmer down in due time." That is a legitimate position to take in conversations regarding the need for the three organs of the state to learn to act within their respective domains. But it cannot be an entirely evolutionary process. The Constitution clearly defines the roles of the state institutions and their jurisdictional limits; there is no ambiguity on the subject. The Parliament, indeed, is sovereign as the President asserted, but the Constitution is supreme. The PPP's coalition partners are under no compulsion to follow what the coalition head decides within its own party. Nonetheless, the PPP core committee's decisions have put its parliamentarians in a bind. Acting in accord with the party line if it is contrary to the decision of the court, could render them to act in violation of the oath they took as members of Parliament under which they solemnly swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan". The court has welcomed the parliamentary investigation into the memo case, saying that the two inquiries would complement both institutions' efforts to get to the truth. So far, it has not overstepped its constitutional limits, either in dealing with other cases involving the political leadership. It goes without saying though that justice should not only be served but seen to be served. Hopefully, the ruling party too will exercise self-control in the days ahead so as not to strain institutions underpinning the democratic edifice. Copyright Business Recorder, 2012