The striking
contrast
Nawaz Sharif has
once again produced a litany of complaints in a press conference on June 11,
2018 about the way he is being treated in the cases against him after his
counsel Khwaja Haris withdrew. The counsel found it impossible to represent his
client to the best of his ability after the Supreme Court (SC) ordered an
extension of one month to the deadline for wrapping up the references against
Nawaz Sharif and his family in an accountability court, admonishing in the
process Khwaja Haris for being unwilling to comply with the SC’s orders for
hearings to be held seven days a week in order to meet the deadline. Although
there exists a perception that Nawaz Sharif has been attempting to delay the
proceedings (at least until after the July 25, 2018 general elections), Khwaja
Haris painted a picture of cooperation with the accountability court, not
asking for adjournments, and pointing out that it was the prosecution that had
failed to proceed with the urgency inherent in the SC’s deadlines, with,
according to him, the unprecedented monitoring of the accountability court
cases by a SC judge, an assertion that is not correct. While the SC has allowed
Nawaz Sharif to engage fresh counsel if Khwaja Haris cannot be persuaded to
continue, this fresh process implies the very delay the SC order sought to
avoid. Whatever the merits of Nawaz Sharif’s defence that is primarily based on
procedure to the exclusion of any paper trail of transactions, the new counsel
will have to acquaint himself with the voluminous case record before being able
to do justice to his client’s cause. The emerging scenario suggests that the
fresh SC deadline may well end up not being met either, and arguably the cases
could drag on till after July 25.
Defenders of the
extraordinary lengths to which the SC has gone to ensure Nawaz Sharif and
family cannot take advantage of the alleged packing of all state institutions
with their loyalists over the decades of being in or close to power may well
have a point. However, there is also another extraordinary thrust by the SC in
allowing former dictator Pervez Musharraf to return home after his blocked CNIC
and passport are restored, guaranteeing he would not be arrested if he appears
before the SC. The SC wishes to hear Musharraf regarding his appeal against being
disqualified from participating in the coming elections. It should not be
forgotten that this extraordinary concession and kid gloves treatment is being
offered to a coup maker (ironically endorsed by the SC), a constitution-breaker
(the Emergency in 2007), an accused in the murder cases of Nawab Akbar Bugti
and Benazir Bhutto, a proclaimed absconder from justice whose properties have
been ordered expropriated (which has yet to be given effect), etc. The caution
and zeal with which the judiciary is pursuing Nawaz Sharif and family’s cases
contrasts sharply with the wriggle room to a fugitive from justice who went
abroad ostensibly for medical treatment and promised to return, but has since
flouted his own commitment and the law by cocking a snook at Pakistan’s justice
system. The SC may well be motivated in both instances by its interpretation of
the Constitution, statutes and laws, but the striking contrast in approach has
most legal luminaries and concerned citizens scratching their heads. It behoves
the SC to take account of the seemingly mixed messages its contradictory
jurisprudence may be sending out, and attempt a course correction so as not
even unintentionally erode the dignity, respect and credibility of the
judiciary. Particularly on the eve of a controversial and likely to be hotly
contested election, the SC and the judiciary as a whole need to look beyond to
preserve their critical role in a state and society that must abide by the rule
of law, but in a consistent manner and ensuring due process.
No comments:
Post a Comment