Constitutional amendments: ‘Alleged’ draft is not the ‘real’ draft, insists Bilawal

ISLAMABAD: In appearances on separate private television channels, Chairman Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Bilawal Bhutto Zardari stated that the alleged draft of the constitutional amendments is not the real draft.

He said that the PPP seeks to advance the reforms promised in its manifesto. Moreover, the unconstitutional ruling on Article 63-A has deprived Parliamentarians of their right to vote according to their own will. They cannot cast their vote against party lines and risk disqualification if they do so. This is why it is imperative to achieve a minimum consensus, for which Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s support is crucial.

Chairman PPP expressed his desire to build consensus around the promises of Benazir Bhutto.

The draft currently under discussion is temporary and will remain so without the backing of Maulana Fazlur Rehman or other allies. It can only be put forward after taking everyone’s input into account, forming consensus, securing approval from the cabinet, and presenting it in the National Assembly.

The PPP’s stance, from the very beginning, has been to pursue clear and concise judicial reforms. In the past, we have faced obstacles when attempting similar changes, but the PPP is now working on sharing its original draft concerning constitutional reforms with the JUI.

Efforts were made to engage the PTI, but they were followed by a dangerous and provocative attack on the Chief of Army Staff and the Chief Justice, eroding the space for dialogue, Chairman PPP said.

Bilawal said that without a two-thirds majority, the amendments will not be passed.

Every Pakistani is aware that our politics, he said adding Parliament, and judicial system are broken.

Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s family and party had to wait fifty years to attain justice, and the situation for the common man is now even direr. As a matter of principle, there should be no objection to the necessity of judicial reforms in the country.

Regarding the government’s aspirations for constitutional amendments, they may be as ambitious as they wish, but the PPP’s interest, as per its manifesto and Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto’s 2006 promise, is tied to the remaining reforms proposed in the Charter of Democracy.

The PPP’s stance is that fulfilling these commitments can not only secure justice for the common people but also address the endemic issues in our judicial system.

He said there is no single example of a court constructing a dam, demolishing buildings to recreate a nostalgic vision of their childhood city, or setting the prices of fruits and vegetables. Therefore, there should be no objection to the necessity of judicial reforms for the country.

In response to a question regarding the timing and process, Bilawal highlighted that despite having a two-thirds majority, the 1973 Constitution was passed with consensus. The 18th Amendment, although passed without a majority, also involved consensus. The current political situation is one of peak polarisation, with politicians unwilling to shake hands.

We took the initiative to form a committee that would engage all politicians, as we desired the PTI to play a positive role. However, the day after this effort, the PTI leader made a dangerous statement that sabotaged the progress. This statement was not only contemptuous of the court but also seditious. The PTI has yet to clarify whether this statement came from their leader.

Thus, it remains difficult for the PPP and PML-N to pass this amendment with PTI’s involvement. Ideally, we would welcome the Opposition’s input, but the current scenario does not support this, he said.

Chairman PPP emphasised that passing the constitutional amendment without Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s affirmation is impossible. The night before, Maulana Fazlur Rehman and his party had significant objections. The PPP, too, engaged with the government regarding its reservations for clear and concise judicial reforms. Engagement with Maulana Fazlur Rehman was intended to follow a similar pattern, with the inputs of all committee members regarding the temporary draft being considered. Only then was the amendment to be passed, but this did not occur. Nonetheless, there is no harm in waiting, as engaging with Maulana Fazlur Rehman is crucial.

It was agreed yesterday with Maulana Fazlur Rehman and his party that the PPP’s original draft would be shared with the JUI, while the latter works on its own draft. If a consensus document based on the two drafts is achieved, surpassing the two-thirds majority would become more feasible.

While we wish for this process to proceed swiftly, our priority is achieving our goals. This may take more than a month or two, but from Maulana’s perspective, there is a genuine desire for PTI’s involvement. In that case, however, these reforms may not materialise, Bilawal said.

Chairman PPP clarified that the PPP’s draft did not address the age issue in the manner presented. The PPP focused more on the establishment of constitutional courts, while the government was concerned with age-related changes. The PPP supported reducing the age limit, to which the government agreed and incorporated into the draft.

The government proposed setting the Chief Justice’s maximum age at 67 with a three-year term.

The JUI suggested retaining the current age limit of 65. Our party believes that fixing an age limit, whether 65 or 67, could be seen as individual-specific, aimed at keeping someone in or out of the race, Chairman Bilawal explained. The PPP’s draft, therefore, made no mention of age, instead proposing term-based limits for constitutional courts.

The purpose of constitutional courts is rooted in the need to expedite justice for the common man and align our system with modern times. A consensus is now to be reached based on proposals from the PPP, PML-N, and JUI.

The current judicial appointment procedure can best be described as “of the judges, for the judges, by the judges.” There is no global precedent for the judiciary appointing its own members.

Chairman Bilawal stated that previous attempts to reform the judiciary were thwarted by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary, who blackmailed the government by threatening the Constitution. Since then, the PPP has continuously advocated for these changes.

My suggestion today remains to return to the 18th Amendment. Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s party proposed merging the judiciary with Parliament’s representatives in the appointment committee. The PPP has no objection to such a path.

Chairman PPP also noted that the PPP’s input into the draft was made with the understanding that Maulana Fazlur Rehman was already aligned with the government. Maulana Fazlur Rehman had raised significant objections to the temporary draft, as did the PPP. The PPP will now exchange drafts with the JUI to produce a consensus document.

The initial appointment of the Chief Justice would need to be a one-time process. Subsequently, the new Chief Justice, along with other senior judges, could devise a future mechanism. Prior to 1996, the Prime Minister held the power to appoint the Chief Justice, which then passed to the Supreme Court.

One proposal is to return this power to the Prime Minister, but the PPP believes that, in the current context, this decision should be made in consultation with the President and the judiciary or the Judicial Commission.

Chairman PPP concluded by stating that while political intentions may differ, the consensus between the PPP and JUI reflects the fact that the two parties are less partisan than the PTI or PML-N, providing more space to build agreement on constitutional amendments.

The amendments should not be person or age specific. Chief Justices Qazi Faez Isa and Mansoor Ali Shah are respectable figures, both part of the bench for Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s case, and they should not be made controversial.

Chairman Bilawal expressed confidence that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah would be the next Chief Justice. Qazi Faez Isa is the first CJ who reduced his own powers and agreed to the Practice and Procedures Act because it was the will of the Parliament, akin to President Zardari devolving his powers, PPP Chairman said.

As far as the military trials for civilians are concerned, there were two proposals within the wish list, he said. PPP has a principled stance regarding military courts and is not in support of them.

However, there have been instances where the PPP has supported such measures. The PPP currently is not in a position to support such measures; therefore, the government might not have the majority necessary for a constitutional amendment as far as the military courts are concerned.

As far as attacks on military installations are concerned, we were willing to consider the protections that could be applied. However, after talking to the JUI, we concluded that the political space for an amendment in Article 8 is lacking.

If the government really deems legislation necessary in this regard, then the PPP would demand that a joint national security meeting of the National Assembly and Senate should be called.

However, clubbing such changes with the current judicial reforms is not feasible in PPP’s view. Chairman PPP said that the government should present details regarding Imran Khan’s role in the May 9 attacks.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024