While Wednesday’s stand-off between the executive and the judiciary had left many expecting charged proceedings on Thursday, there were few fireworks in Courtroom No 1 as the Supreme Court gave the government yet another opportunity to submit the prime minister’s reply regarding the reinstatement of FIA official Hussain Asghar and the removal of Sohail Ahmed from his post of Establishment Secretary. This came after the attorney general assured the court that he had personally spoken to the prime minister and requested the court to grant him time to submit his reply. The day before, as news came in that Sohail Ahmed was made Officer on Special Duty (OSD), the court had said the move was meant to ‘punish’ Ahmed for obeying court orders
In the background to the court’s orders, government circles argue they are being hassled by an acrimonious court and in fact held a federal cabinet meeting on Wednesday to discuss the court’s “interference in the executive domain.” Babar Awan accused the court of being biased against the federal government and alluded that coercive measures were being used to get the court’s decisions implemented. The prime minister himself responded emotionally to the SC decisions and said there was a limit to everything and the court was now encroaching upon, and undermining, his authority as chief executive. This is an unfair charge since the chief justice has explained many times that he respects the discretionary powers of the prime minister; but what the prime minister seems to have forgotten is that under Article 190 of the Constitution he is duty bound to aid the SC in the implementation of its orders. Instead, he has come to be seen as stone-facedly impeding the court’s affairs. Realising the domain of executive authority but keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the Haj and NICL cases, instead of passing orders itself, the SC has always first sent the issue to the government through the attorney general. It is only when that has repeatedly failed to bear results that the court has examined the administrative orders in exercise of the powers of Judicial Review and passed orders in both cases. The court has given the government countless chances to prove that it is interested in accountability and rule of law but it is now increasingly clear that the federal government has launched an open war not just against the judiciary but also against the very principle and practice of accountability itself.
Source: The News
In the background to the court’s orders, government circles argue they are being hassled by an acrimonious court and in fact held a federal cabinet meeting on Wednesday to discuss the court’s “interference in the executive domain.” Babar Awan accused the court of being biased against the federal government and alluded that coercive measures were being used to get the court’s decisions implemented. The prime minister himself responded emotionally to the SC decisions and said there was a limit to everything and the court was now encroaching upon, and undermining, his authority as chief executive. This is an unfair charge since the chief justice has explained many times that he respects the discretionary powers of the prime minister; but what the prime minister seems to have forgotten is that under Article 190 of the Constitution he is duty bound to aid the SC in the implementation of its orders. Instead, he has come to be seen as stone-facedly impeding the court’s affairs. Realising the domain of executive authority but keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the Haj and NICL cases, instead of passing orders itself, the SC has always first sent the issue to the government through the attorney general. It is only when that has repeatedly failed to bear results that the court has examined the administrative orders in exercise of the powers of Judicial Review and passed orders in both cases. The court has given the government countless chances to prove that it is interested in accountability and rule of law but it is now increasingly clear that the federal government has launched an open war not just against the judiciary but also against the very principle and practice of accountability itself.
Source: The News
No comments:
Post a Comment