Nawaz Sharif, Bhutto and Judiciary
PARLIAMENT is one of the formidable pillars of a state, yet by all canons and connotations of equality and separation of powers amongst pillars of state we will find ourselves standing on the point of no return when we perceive if the Judiciary sharing the powers with parliament in respect of law making and in any case have an overwhelming edge on parliament then what would be the stature of parliament; a secondary organ.
Seeing, prima facie, if an enactment of Parliament is against public interest or any existing clause of Constitution then the judiciary can play an advisory role and will be right in passing judgment that the specific law is hereby revoked being contrary to public interest. In all regulatory law premises, connotations, canons the law making power of parliament cannot be curtailed any way. Law making is the sole prerogative, authority, jurisdiction of parliament on which no barricade can be installed. Enactment or amendment of clauses of Constitution pertaining to procedure of functioning of government organs is the exclusive domain of parliament. We can say parliament is the mother of all state institutions.
To uphold the rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution independent judiciary plays a pivotal role. Justice is the foundation of a civilized society when judges award judicious verdicts, guarantee of basic human rights overlap all evils and all organs of state function without unlawful hurdles. Decisions of judiciary speak itself, these win either applause or condemnation. Unfortunately some decisions of our judiciary had gravely black painted the judicial wisdom. People expect that our judiciary will award decisions based on judicial equilibrium. Separation of powers formula guarantees the smooth functioning of the executive, the judiciary and legislative. Unfortunately some certain decisions of Supreme Court have been imposed in the sense to expugn legislative authority which exclusively rests with parliament. Parliament makes laws and constitution and judiciary illustrate these laws, in case any ambiguity prevails anyway and the executive implement the decisions of courts and guards the dignity of parliament as well as judiciary.
Martial Law is most cursed tool to force the nation and country on backfoot even zero point. Worst democracy is much better than excellent dictatorship. Ayub Khan is the pioneer of military coup and causing convulsion and ripples in societal fabric. He paved way for later marshal laws. Justice Munir invented a dogma “Necessity makes lawful which is unlawful” and the Munir doctrine, later on, convulsed the whole judicial system. It became so notorious that even today it is often quoted to express extreme hate towards this judicial dictum.
Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif both have faced judicial wrath of judiciary. Bhutto had been hanged by judiciary and this act of judiciary has been termed as judicial assassination of Bhutto. Nawaz Sharif has been deposed and incarcerated in a case which, prima facie, seems manoeuvring brewed in haste because someone wanted Nawaz Sharif to be thrown behind the bars. Nawaz Sharif and Maryum Nawaz both were sent behind the bars, to teach them a lesson to remember forever, that they are nothing in front of iron clad persons.
Musharaf executed a coup against Nawaz Sharif and after keeping him in troublesome position in jail sent him in exile to Saudi Arabia. Unluckily Nawaz Sharif has twice been deposed by establishment. General Bajwa deposed Nawaz Sharif and then Imran Khan for his vested gains. He played a role conducive to bring I.K to power and in the end threw IK out of power. IK is in awkward position since his overthrow and he is striving hard to regain power. First he came into power with the help of Bajwa and now endeavouring hard to regain sceptre without the help of establishment, which is not an easy task.
Unfortunately establishment and judiciary both are striving hard to establish their own sceptre, ignoring the perpetual fact that anything gained by manoeuvring is not everlasting. Some politicians in past established strong relations with establishment under the phantasy that they are endeared to establishment, while they were only tools to be used and thrown out like tissue papers. Politicians have never exhibited maturity and statesmanship to come to power to work for the people and country. They have never cared national interest, their topmost priority is to rule over the country, whether it be gained with “propping up” or any other means. As is the inherent desire of politicians to hold sway over the country by fair or foul means and to fulfil this ulterior motive they have caused irreparable loss to the national interest. To win the power race they are ever ready to cross red line of patriotism and nationalism.
IK had had never spoken a single word against Gen. Bajwa if he had let him complete his tenure and had facilitated to again come to power. If I.K wins general elections, he will again seek establishment support to remain stuck to the throne. On the other hand Nawaz Sharif had learnt a lot from his hot experiments and at this age-stage he might contribute a lot to the country. If circumstances allow him to come back, then the political scenario will see a sudden change. His return will amass massive popular support and PLM (N) may have enough seats to form independent government. I.K and other political pundits of PTI have evidently conceived if Qazi Faiz Issa assumes as CJ then scenario may change suddenly and Mian Nawaz Sharif may return to country and IK will lose the ground on which he is standing firmly, hence his keen desire to pressurize government to hold general elections before assumption of Qazi Faiz Issa as CJP.
—The writer is author of English Book on current affairs and independent.
Email: mlkaslamawan@gmail.com
