"The next 24 hours" that Babar Awan had predicted to be "very important" have passed and the political system is still in one piece, proving wrong this official compass on constitutional issues. Somehow, Prime Minister Gilani managed to stay clear of his former law minister's brief, shunning the path of confrontation with the judiciary by taking a low-profile stand on the floor of the National Assembly.
And to much wonderment of many, the much-talked about 'resolution' that was to assert his government's exclusive right to control and direct the bureaucracy did not materialise. Not that Prime Minister Gilani was tame and timid in his expression; he was quite rhetorical but less argumentative, and instead of targeting the judiciary he directed his fire at the PML (N) leadership. In fact, the PML (N) leaders had earned the prime minister's ire for they too - with hindsight it appears wrongly - had over-reacted to the 'resolution' threat and made certain outlandish counter-threats.
Why the hype built over the week, since the Supreme Court's order to restore the then Establishment Secretary Sohail Ahmed and bring back to the FIA, the Hajj scam investigator Hussain Asghar dissipated so quickly, a cogent explanation has yet to come by. Given that the National Assembly was called to session after two very high-level conclaves in the Presidency, the mystery remains as to what triggered the shift in the government position vis-à-vis the Supreme Court. May be, the order of the court that in effect clearly stated that the executive has the right to transfer bureaucrats but does not have the right to punish for compliance with orders of the court, had worked.
But even when Prime Minister Gilani put up a conciliatory face and claimed his government was never short on implementing the orders and verdicts of the Supreme Court, there was ample evidence to suggest that the government would persist in its present mode of defiance. That he restored Sohail Ahmed just before the National Assembly session it is too inadequate an evidence to justify his claim of 'fully' implementing the apex court's orders and decisions. The sad truth is that the prime minister of Pakistan was less than forthright and truthful in his address from the floor of the National Assembly.
Against how openly and blatantly his government defied the Supreme Court on almost all of its orders and verdicts that relate to the PPP leadership, he had no case. If his government had decided finally not to go for an anti-Supreme Court resolution in parliament, Prime Minister Gilani should have then taken the next best step; he should have announced some kind of timelines for implementation of the court's outstanding orders. And, how come he should accuse the opposition of manipulating the bureaucracy, while the fact remains that it's the government that consistently used its officials, both as investigators and witnesses, before the judges.
Who doesn't know in Pakistan why there is insistence on the part of the government that the judiciary has no say in running affairs of the executive. Prime Minister Gilani is right in saying that transfers and postings of officers is the prerogative of the chief executive, but that right ceases to exist when the said officers are investigating allegations of corruption against the chief executive. Isn't it true that in the Hajj scam, the prime minister's son is alleged to be an illegal beneficiary? Then this perception is also misleading and wrong that the parliament is over and above the Supreme Court and is the sole defender of the constitution. In a democratic system, which we have, the parliament is one of the three principal organs of state, and that its control over the constitution is only to the extent of amending it. As to what the constitution is and what it implies, in case there is a controversy it is the Supreme Court that shows the way.
Simply stated, while the legislature makes laws and amends the constitution, it is the sole prerogative of the apex court to interpret the laws and the constitution. This separation of power forms the bedrock of the democratic system, and has to be respected to ensure its survival. The government would be sadly mistaken if it believes that it is tiring out the apex court and that over the time, the cases involving its leadership would be consigned to limbo. Yes the court is exhibiting extraordinary patience, but that is what justice with equity is. In the end, we have no doubt that justice will prevail - letting none of the guilty escape the long arm of the law.