News Analysis |
The Supreme Court served a show-cause to the Minister of State for Interior Affairs Talal Chaudhry on Tuesday, ordering him to file his response regarding the suo moto contempt of court case against him. On Thursday, the SC sent a contempt of court notice to Talal Chaudhry for his speech in PML-N’s Jaranwala rally.
In court on Tuesday, Chaudhry accompanied by Pervaiz Rashid, requested the Supreme Court to give him three weeks’ time to hire a lawyer and prepare his response, to which the presiding Justice Ijaz Efzal remarked, “Why don’t we give you three months or three years?” Justice Efzal turned down his request and ordered him to file his response within a week. The court has been adjourned till date.
On the contrary, leaders of a political party continue to preside over a party for a long time and their mistakes do reflect poorly on the entire party especially a party who is named after the perpetrator of those mistakes.
While addressing a public gathering in Jaranwala on 27th January, Chaudhry stated that, “There was a time when the Kaabah was filled with idols and now the judiciary, the country’s highest institution, is also full of PCO [Provisional Constitution Order] idols. Nawaz Sharif, throw them out, throw him out. They will not give justice.”
The SC had also sent a contempt notice to PML-N leader Daniyal Aziz for his contemptuous speeches against the judiciary on different television shows on Friday. He was ordered to appear before the court on 7th February.
Read more: SC issues contempt of court notices to Daniyal Aziz and Talal…
Last week on Thursday, PML-N senator Nehal Hashmi was sentenced to one month in prison, disqualified from holding public office for 5 years and fined for 50,000 rupees in a contempt of court case. In May 2017, Hashmi had threatened the children and families of the SC judges and the members of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) that was formed to investigate the Panama Papers case.
On 28th July 2017, the SC of Pakistan disqualified former premier Nawaz Sharif under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. Since his disqualification, Nawaz Sharif has started a nation-wide campaign against the judiciary and has systematically accused them of disqualifying him for not taking a salary from his son.
If certain individuals that constitute an institution have made certain mistakes in the past, it does mean that the institution in itself should lose all future credibility or that all future individuals that are part of that institution should be questioned, challenged and doubted indefinitely.
Sharif has repeatedly accused the judiciary and the establishment of conspiring against him in a sinister attempt to derail democracy. He has been using extensive examples from history in his speeches to prove that the judiciary has always sided with the military and supported dictatorships. Sharif claims that the mandate of the people is not respected and the people will not accept the SC’s decision that disqualified him from politics.
Media analysts have observed that when Nehal Hashmi made a contemptuous speech against the judiciary last year, the PML-N took a stern stance against him. Hashmi was ousted from the party and his speech was unanimously condemned by the entire PML-N. These events took place before the 28th July Panama Papers case verdict.
Read more: The judiciary is not part of any ‘planning’ or for derailing…
After the verdict, the kind of crude language that was used by Hashmi in his May 2017 speech was observed by the entire senior leadership of the PML-N. Analysts believe that the PML-N has taken a complete U-turn after the disqualification of their leader. They have refused to accept or respect the decision that has been taken by the Supreme Court.
They have pointed out that Nawaz Sharif has never alluded to his central role in helping and sustaining Zia-ul -Haq’s military regime therefore it is highly unethical of him to attack the Supreme Court for supporting a dictator.
Another difference in the post-Panama verdict and pre-Panama verdict is that Hashmi was condemned for his speech and expelled by the PML-N on the basis of contempt of court. On the other hand, Daniyal Aziz and Talal Chaudhry are being praised and applauded for their crass speeches not to mention that Nawaz Sharif has offered them his full support. It was observed during the PML-N rally in Peshawar on 4th February where Nawaz Sharif openly condemned the contempt of court notices to Aziz and Chaudhry that the ex-premier has completely changed his stance on the supremacy of the Supreme Court which he has now decided to challenge, insult and undermine.
The language used by Hashmi, Aziz, Chaudhry and Nawaz has been very similar however Hashmi and Aziz have been served notices by the SC while Nawaz Sharif has been pardoned by the court. Political experts believe that Nawaz Sharif’s attempt to pressurize the courts into reconsidering their decision has been working and he has managed to convince the public that the SC judges are biased against him.
Read more: PML-N harassment of NAB Court echoes 1997 attack on Supreme Court..!
This public perception that has been created through divisive manipulation by PML-N is working in Nawaz’s favor. The five member SC bench that gave the disqualification verdict against Sharif cannot take any further action against him since it would substantiate Nawaz’s claim that the court is biased against him. Any action taken by the SC against Nawaz will now be viewed as a maligning act rather than the implementation of justice. Legal experts fear that the verbal assault against the judiciary by PML-N has created unprecedented obstacles in the workings of the SC undermining the most important institution of the country.
The SC had also sent a contempt notice to PML-N leader Daniyal Aziz for his contemptuous speeches against the judiciary on different television shows on Friday. He was ordered to appear before the court on 7th February.
The political history analysts have pointed out the sheer emptiness in Sharif’s arguments that claim that the SC has sided with the military and promoted dictatorship considering the fact that Nawaz Sharif himself was a by-product of dictatorship. They have pointed out that Nawaz Sharif has never alluded to his central role in helping and sustaining Zia-ul -Haq’s military regime therefore it is highly unethical of him to attack the Supreme Court for supporting a dictator.
If certain individuals that constitute an institution have made certain mistakes in the past, it does mean that the institution in itself should lose all future credibility or that all future individuals that are part of that institution should be questioned, challenged and doubted indefinitely. On the contrary, leaders of a political party continue to preside over a party for a long time and their mistakes do reflect poorly on the entire party especially a party who is named after the perpetrator of those mistakes.