Will the newly enacted contempt of court law help spare Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf the fate of his predecessor's, that's in the realm of speculation. But the very purpose that has brought this law into existence militates against the fundamentals of law making by the elected houses. The said enactment is specific to a particular situation, as against the concept of universality that a law should entail, and hence, it may be argued, has been enacted with mala fide intention. From the very beginning it was clear that Raja will not write the letter to Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases in Switzerland. Therefore, on the face of it, his fate was sealed, for the Supreme Court is not expected to change the course after disqualifying his predecessor for an identical offence. But the PPP leadership is ready to render such sacrifices. To the man in the street it's bizarre that the entire political system has become hostage to a single issue, especially when the parliament believes and has expressed its view in no uncertain terms that such letter cannot be written. However, more relevantly, the new law may be held to clash with the spirit of our constitution as it tends to run afoul of the pristine concept of separation of powers. Under its scheme of things, the Executive, at all levels, enjoys immunity from being charged of contempt of court anywhere, anytime. That an official should go unpunished just because he enjoys immunity from the application of contempt of court law it is unacceptable as it's offensive of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the constitution. Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry has already spoken his mind on this issue and it is therefore quite likely that the new contempt of court law may be struck down by the apex court. Of the legal minds who think so, include the PPP stalwarts Aitzaz Ahsan and Raza Rabbani. Certainly, a fuller debate in both the houses of parliament would have cast the weaknesses and shortcomings of the Bill in deeper relief. But the voice vote in the Senate brought to an unceremonious end what could have been an enlightening debate. In between the two hard positions - of the government that so-called immunity of the Executive would be protected at all costs and the apex court's determination 'let heavens fall, justice will be done' - there is the bitter reality of day-to-day life in today's Pakistan. For the common man there is no such thing as a government. While debates on finer points of law and constitution take place at the higher political forums and plush drawing rooms, millions of Pakistanis spend sleepless nights because of unforgiving power outages, thousands turn up on streets every day protesting joblessness and scores opt to end their lives by committing suicide. They say they have enough of democracy if it is what we have today in the shape of a 'functioning democracy'. We have here no intention to question the wisdom of higher courts to ensure due process of law while hearing cases, but we cannot help thinking that we have been in this executive-judiciary contention far too long. We also know that neither an elected government could be as insensate to the wellbeing of the people as here, nor is fidelity to the contempt of court concept as hermetic as in Pakistan.
Comments
Comments are closed.