Seeking to put a stop to the disqualification of its prime ministers, as well as avoiding ‘contempt of court’ charges against politicians in general, the PPP-led coalition government passed the Contempt of court bill through the National Assembly late Monday.
While members of the opposition raised concerns and protested against the bill, it swiftly made its way through and into the Senate, which must also pass it before the president signs it into a law. The bill contains most of the provisions of the previous contempt laws that it seeks to repeal but the most important of its new clauses is one aimed to protect the new prime minister that excludes from contempt of court “exercise of powers and performance of functions by a public office holder of his respective office for any act done or purported to be done in exercise of those powers and performance of those function”.
A petitioner, however, has opposed the bill, terming it an unconstitutional and unlawful step.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, the NA debated and criticised the judiciary, with some lawmakers saying “the country is being run on suo motu notices” and called for a review of the judges’ performances.
These activities in the parliament indicate an urgency from the government to stop the Supreme Court from charging its politicians and prime minister of contempt of court as it recovers from the dismissal of Yousuf Raza Gilani. The court, meanwhile, has not shied away from being critical of the government in the last few weeks.
With the judiciary and the government seemingly headed towards a collision course, how will the country be affected by these actions?
Will the newly-passed bill be able to save PM Raja Pervaiz Ashraf? How will the judiciary react to the passing of the bill if, indeed, it is signed into law by the president?
Have the government and judiciary set an unwelcome precedence for the future governments to come?
Dawn.com asks its readers to share their opinions and voice their suggestions…
I believe that the office of President has the immunity from his actions taken to perform his duties.Can some one explain that it also gives immunity if the honourable president is blamed to have acquired funds in a dishonest way,which have nothing to do with his duties as a president.There is a urgent need for our Parlimentarians,including opposition members in the national assembly to revisit the priviledge of immunity to office holders.Also the media can also help to high light this controversial issue,which has put the whole nation off the track of normal daily business.It is also an issue of standard of morality for all the important personalities who are running the government.For God’s sake set some good examples of morality for rest of the nation to follow your example.
Current superfluous hale by the apex court is a futile scramble having no outcome for the public suffering from unemployment, inflation, deteriorating law and order situation and corruption. Myriad of unheared cases are pending in lower courts. Most of the suspects have crossed the detention exceeding the maximum sentence period for the crime he has been accuse, helplessly looking for the proceeding to be initiated. Corruption has reached to the extent that even a widow can’t draw her late husbands fidding sum of pension without giving bribe. Supreme court instead of deluding the public must sincerely put its efforts to provide justice instead of this tug of war.
I think both parliament and judiciary has to work within their domain.It looks like that Judiciary is not independent.They are not treating all politicians case equally.They are covering Sharif’s family’ cases and trying to damage the ppp government.Judiciary has done nothing for the common people whose cases are pending in court since years without justice.Parliament’s job is to make law and judiciary’s job to interpret the law.In-case of differences speaker’s and election commissioner are the final authority as per constitution.So judiciary and specially this chief justice is trying to dictate his power.Because of Judiciary now lawyers are taking law in their hand as we have seen they are physically hurting police forces.Now is the time to stop judiciary to go beyond their domain.
An ironic truth which we can never ignore is that our judiciary has always backed up a military regime and has made firm the footsteps of a military coup. Each military regime’s foundations got stronger with the support of legal protection that was provided by the judiciary and legislature of the country. Military regimes for a fact have ruled over the country much longer than any of its democratic counterpart and have badly hit the whole democratic structure, which after 65 years of independence is still in its infancy. For that not just the military is guilty but the judiciary is responsible for its undemocratic steps since it provided a legalistic rationale for all military adventures in Pakistan. History could provide you with multiple examples and evidences of such practices carried out by justices, the latest of which could be the protection and legal cover given to General Musharraf’s rule. Another sad and evident example to justify Zia-ul-Haq’s illegal and unconstitutional regime in the mid-1970s was the enigma of “doctrine of necessity” invoked by the justices.
First make sure that the constitution is the supreme law and that the supreme Court means a supreme body to determine what a piece of law is, what it means and where and how it must be applied or may not be applied.
Second, the parliamentarians don’t have an Open General License (O.G.L )to change, amend, add or substract the provisions of this supreme law of the land. If they are allowed to do that, then they might even remove the preamble from being a part of the constitution. And remember the preamble talks about the supremacy of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which guarantees protection of lives and liberties of the citizens and disciplines the paramount institutions to work in unison for the general well being of the people.
Third, with the passage of times the parliamentarians may come and go, but the constitution remains, subject to any legislation by the parliament in the interest of the common good; not to provide them a shield to terrorize the whole nation or to create friction among the institutions as has been done recently.
Finally, lack of education, lack of technology, lack of innovation and lack of the will to remain current with the times are the factors poisoning the atmosphere which only the voters have the right to get rid of. But, who has the time, the will and the loyalty to think about my points noted above?
Both are supreme and both should respect each other and should find solution keeping in mind not only constitutional wordings but spirit hidden within. I think any loss to one institution will lead damage to another ultimately. So keep distance and avoid overtaking as road is curvy.
It is strange. If court can not hold the political and administrative machinery of state to enforce its decision, the judcial authority as we have known since enforcement of public order and descipline for governance and well being of population at large will be no more. If it happens in Pakistan, the powerful people in other coutries may also take it as a model. We will reveret back by almost 500 years of civilized human development on thsi score.
Dear mr. Agha Ata, we are not discussing the chief justice’s qualification but his prejudices.I suppose you missed the point.
Unfortunately the CJ is trying to settle his personal vendetta against Zardari which un-intentionally is hurting the fragile democracy in Pakistan. The constitution grants immunity to the sitting president which must be respected. If that is not enough the parliament can amendment the constitution accordingly. Should the CJ consider it so important to punish Zardari he can find other ways after he vacates the office. By the way it is useless to write any such letter.
This collision had happened when CJ was dismissed. Country will be affected as before it had been, like no watch on the ministers accounts so no watch on government accounts and the citizens will suffer in the form of high rate of inflation.
Obviously PM will be save, because President is save .For the time being Judiciary will protest only, yes may be in future they can change by force like the example is coming back of CJ.
The future government will like it as it’s in their favor.
Much we hate Zardari the CJ is not above the president or the parliament. Believe it not the constitution gives immunity to the president which should be respected. Also the president has the power to appoint the CJ (and to dismiss him). It is a shame that our judges are acting like spoiled children and should know their limits. Zardari is not the only corrupt official. The entire society has become corrupt regardless it is the government, the politicians, the media, or the judiciary. If the suo moto CJ is so concerned about corruption he should have resigned the very first day when corruption charges were leveled against him.
Very right in saying that judiciary is behaving like spoiled children. This has become a trouble making institution not only for the government but also for economy of the country. You are also right that actually he is not against corruption and he should have resigned when charges of huge corruption / blackmailing came into surface on his son. He is a highly selfish person who for his personal ego / heroism / lust for authority has been confronting with other organs / institutions of the country and destroying the economy of the country.
The collision has already happened, with Zardari signing the bill into a law. I agree with Agha Ata that its not so much about the president’s immunity, just Zardari’s. And yes, the judiciary has done nothing against the law or the constitution. When worse comes to worst, I’ll be standing with the Judiciary for the principled stand it has taken. The vagabonds that rule us know no bounds to their vandalism, may God help us. But God also helps those who help themselves……..!!
The supreme court has not done much for justice.
To make such a claim, one should be more qualified than he Chief Justice.
The case is not so much about the immunity that a president enjoys as it is about the immunity that Zardari enjoys. He will do anything to save his hide and get away with the money he has or had in Swiss account. A prime minster chosen by Zardari is obviously has to have one qualification, his willingness to save Zardrai at any cost by not writing the letter to Swiss banks.
So it is not a collision between Judiciary and the government, it is between Zardari and the government.
Judiciary has done nothing against the Law or the Constitution.
Zardari has.