Restore Constitution to Its Pre-Zia Form By Wajih Abbasi: New Age Islam's Selection, 02 August 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
02 August 2017
• Restore Constitution to Its Pre-Zia Form
By Wajih Abbasi
• The Rape of Lady Liberty Most Foul
By Miranda Husain
• The Women Who Win
By Rafia Zakaria
• Judicial Precedents In Pakistan's Power Struggle
By Omer Azhar Bhatti
• Back To Square One?
By Umer Akram Chaudhry
• The Party Is Over
By Wajid Shamsul Hasan
• Descent into Chaos
By Zahid Hussain
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
------
Restore Constitution to Its Pre-Zia Form
By Wajih Abbasi
02-Aug-17
Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification has once again highlighted the possible dangers posed to the democratic health of the polity by amendments made by military dictator, General Ziaul Haq, in constitutional articles concerning qualifications and disqualifications of members of the Parliament.
Irrespective of the details of accusations against Nawaz Sharif and his family, which have now been referred to relevant courts, his disqualification — like that of former Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani in 2012 — has proved that Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution are a Damocles Sword hanging over the heads of parliamentarians in the same way as the notorious Article 58 2-B once used to.
When he ‘restored’ the Constitution in 1985, General Ziaul Haq made numerous amendments in the document, completely changing its character. The objective was to enable him to remotely control the Parliament and the government from the Presidency and/or Army house.
Amendments in the Article related to qualification and disqualification of members of Parliament were aimed at controlling individual MPs.
When he had imposed the martial law in 1977, Article 62 of the Constitution provided only that any citizen of Pakistan, not younger than 25 years of age and registered as a voter, could contest elections for the National or a provincial assembly. The disqualifications explained in the following Article were that he or she should not have been declared, by a competent court, as an insolvent or of unsound mind or taken nationality of another country.
Both articles provided that an act of Parliament like the Representation of People’s Act of 1976 could provide for further qualifications and disqualifications.
These criteria were clearly laid out, objective and quantifiable. Nothing was left to whims or subjective interpretation of administrators and judges.
But, anything clear and objective does not serve the purpose of dictators, so General Zia’s regime inserted following clauses in Article 62: “A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Parliament unless (d) he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions; (e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins; (f) he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law; and (g) he has not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked against the integrity of the country or opposed the ideology of Pakistan.”
These gave rise to questions like who would decide whether someone’s character is good or bad? If someone objects to my character, how can I prove him or her wrong? What is adequate knowledge of Islam? Would knowledge about daily prayers be sufficient? If yes, according to what sect? Someone might say the MPs should have knowledge of holy Quran, Hadith and Fiqa. Would you hold competitive exams to judge that, and only those passing it would be allowed to stand in elections?
During the filing of nomination papers for 2013 general elections, we saw the fallout from these additions to the Constitution when returning officers were reported asking candidates to recite verses from the holy Quran and disqualifying them for failing to do so. They were later allowed to contest elections by the judiciary.
Regarding the clause on sagacity and righteous of members, there are questions like how may a person once declared dishonest or profligate later prove that he has been reformed? Who would judge that he was right in claiming that?
This clause is being debated after the Panama Papers judgement. Most jurists believe that Sharif’s disqualification is permanent in nature. We have yet to see any judgement of superior courts on the issue. Unfortunately, our courts have not been consistent in interpretation of different provisions of the constitution so even if today the court says that disqualification is not permanent, in future it may declare otherwise.
Voices in support of democratic governance in the country have been calling for restoration of the Constitution in the form it existed before Zia years. However, these voices have not had sufficient majority in the Parliament to effect such a change. Those enjoying such majorities on different occasions have been too obliged to the legacy of Zia to allow change.
With 18th Amendment, the Constitution was purified of most of the absurdities inserted during Zia and Musharraf years. However, certain amendments inserted during Zia’s rule including those in articles pertaining to qualification and disqualification were not touched on the pretext that those were ‘Islamic provisions’. The ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his party and his ally JUI-F, besides Jamat-e-Islami, had opposed removal of these amendments. The recent decision against Nawaz Sharif should be enough for the PML-N to change its mind.
During the filing of nomination papers for the 2013 elections, we saw the fallout from Zia’s constitutional amendments when returning officers were reported asking candidates to recite verses from the Holy Quran
We don’t just require Articles 62 and 63 to be restored to their original form but also Article 2-A, besides amendments related to the Federal Shariat Court that needs to be revisited.
There had been nothing so sacrosanct about the Objective Resolution when it was passed, and that should be the way its looked at today as well. The Council of Islamic Ideology and the country’s judiciary were already performing the role envisioned for the Federal Shariat Court. The Sharia court is just an extra burden on public exchequer and should be done away with.
One hopes that political leaders will perceive dangers posed by Zia-era amendments and make necessary changes to the Constitution before the next general elections.
Another important issue the Parliament will have to look into is that of Article 184 of the Constitution, especially its third clause. The ambit of this provision has been expanded too much. Most cases of political nature are dealt with under this provision and with each new decision its scope gets widened. It is about time the legislature re-visits the Article to settle at a proper scope of the said provision.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/02-Aug-17/restore-constitution-to-its-pre-zia-form
----
The Rape of Lady Liberty Most Foul
By Miranda Husain
02-Aug-17
In Pakistan, Lady Liberty constantly finds herself draped in borrowed robes. Democracy does this to her. Time and again. Keeping forever in mind the male gaze.
Today, democracy has stripped her naked. Once more. And all because the men at the top demand it. To avenge democracy for violation by the courts. For the latter, they say, have overstepped the mark. Have dishonoured her. And this they cannot let go.
Yet where were these men, the uniformed as well as the suited and non-booted, where were they when Lady Liberty herself was gang raped and paraded for all her small world to see? Where were they when she went by her given name of Mukhtaran Mai — before she found the courage to take this role for herself. When no one else was willing to see justice done?
For is this not the same Supreme Court that exonerated the men who did this to her? Is this not the same Supreme Court that observed she had less to lose than a young unmarried virgin? Is this not the same Supreme Court whose judgement led this country to being ranked one of the world’s worst for women? Yet they were silent. Why?
A decade-and-half later and we stand where we were before. Two rapes in a macabre intertwining not far from what happened to Mai, that which swiftly indicted her to the crusade. And what to say of Lady Justice? She, who has been blindly preoccupied by the fate of the men at the top, as opposed to those who prove themselves the lowest of the low. Here, as then, the focus is skewered. Two girls were raped. The spotlight rests on just one. As if the spite of vengeance absolves the original sin.
How did any of us, all of us, reach this point?
They would have us believe that Pakistan is no place for women. Whether under military dictatorship or the uncivilised civilians. They would have us believe this — so that we remain silent. They did this to Mai. But she proved them all wrong. The veritable thorn in their side has she been. When they returned her rapists to freedom she stayed put. Living with them cheek by jowl. Affording their children education at her school. Receiving compensation from one particular enemy combatant before he galloped off towards the global stage at sunset, accusing her and others of pedalling a rape-to-riches scam.
But then, suddenly, it was if she had never been so humiliatingly rebuked and physically constrained by the man in khaki. The dashing commando who was famously snapped clutching a beloved Pekingese dog under each arm, appearing as pleased as punch, verily tickled pink. The soft face of a hard country home to the few moderately enlightened. For there she was, right there in the eye of the appropriation storm, right there in imperialism’s crossfire. Flooding in came the accolades, some of them meaningful, others not so much. For what currency is there in being Glamour magazine Woman of the Year? What difference does it make being photographed with Hillary Clinton and Gloria Steinem? To the aforementioned, the answer is, quite simply, rather a lot. For there is no free ride quite like a coattail one.
A decade-and-half later and we stand where we were before. Two rapes in a macabre intertwining. Here, as then, the focus is skewered. Two girls were raped. The spotlight rests on just one. As if the spite of vengeance absolves the original sin
Yet back home, here in this hard and unforgiving country, Mai had to prove again her mettle’s worth. Four years ago, just as the men at the top were coming close to fulfilling for the first time democracy’s open desire — there she was at a global summit begging the internationalists to dig deep for her schools. Could there be a bloodier stain on democracy’s façade? Sadly there could, and it happened less than a year ago. When this woman, this true Lady Liberty, who stepped in after all the institutions of the state had left her forsaken and forlorn, was reduced to walking the ramp, taking to a local catwalk at the behest of her old frenemy, democracy. To remind people that she had gone nowhere, that she was still here fighting the unfair fight. To re-prick those who claim to have a conscience. And donate to her cause. Thus did the fashion world decide to itself turn tricks and pimp out the image of a woman very nearly destroyed, wrapped up in its false robes of emancipation. Personified.
And all the while, do these men at the top insist their only priority is to keep democracy safe, to be the only custodians of her honour. They care not upon whom they trample in the process. If they did, they would view democracy through a new prism, a new lens. One that would show them that while women are at the bottom, these men can never truly remain at the top. That this un-fine balancing act will have to one day come to an end. Toppling them in the process. And then maybe they will finally learn this lesson: democracy can never flourish. Not whilst this war of genocide wages against Lady Liberty.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/02-Aug-17/the-rape-of-lady-liberty-most-foul
----
The women who win
By Rafia Zakaria
August 02, 2017
I WANT women to win. I want them to win elections so they can lead countries. I want them to win promotions so that they can lead companies. I want them to overcome obstacles and shatter glass ceilings, demand and command authority. It is a goal that even in this moment of great technological advancement, instantaneous communication and global connectivity, is a somewhat elusive one.
But before I go on to enumerate all the reasons why, a necessary correction must be noted. When I say I want women to win, I mean certain sorts of women; women who advance on the basis of merit, survive on their own skills, reach the summit as a result of their own efforts.
That particular sort of woman, the self-made woman, has been tough to find in the realm of politics. Not very long after its birth, Pakistan had, in Mohtarima Fatima Jinnah, a candidate for president. The sister of the country’s founder contested the election but did not win. But the daughter of an executed prime minister did go on to win some decades later. Until recently, it seemed that another daughter of a now thrice-removed prime minister would again take on the mantle of leadership.
The self-made woman has been tough to find in the realm of politics.
All of them were leaders or came close to becoming leaders, but all three, received a leg up, a halo, an enveloping glow from the fathers or brothers that preceded them and who had laid a foundation or paved a path. Dynastic power can bestow riches and glory on many under its shadow and so it is for women, the fact of their femaleness, otherwise such a burden, mitigated by its beatific glow.
Dynastic politics, and the fact that they have permitted women to rise and lead even within the political sphere, are not of course a particularly Pakistani phenomenon. Next door in India, it was the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru who steered the country, part of a new dynasty built on the legacy of her father. After the daughter came the grandson, with even the granddaughter-in-law making her entry into politics on the basis of what it bestowed. Were it not for the rise of a populist hate-mongering man, the great grandchildren and a granddaughter-in-law might have been in the top office of the land. They may yet find themselves there.
Nor is it simply a South Asian phenomenon. Even as the trauma of Trump makes America reel, it must not be forgotten that the woman who almost became president (who won the popular vote and may well have won the election were it not for the meddling of a former superpower) was also the beneficiary of a man who had come first. This uncomfortable fact has been dissected at length, often by one or another of the many American feminists that had some qualms about the fact and were made uncomfortable by how it poisoned the pot, the narrative of female triumph.
Most made their peace, though; a woman was better than no woman, and Hillary Clinton, it was concluded, had the best chance to beat the odds. Perhaps, some thought, the misogyny of American society — heck, of world society — remained stuck at such high levels that victory without dynasty would be impossible.
We all know how that bet turned out. America elected Donald Trump and now seems deep in the pit of dynastic politics, with son, daughter and son-in-law in plum positions in the White House (and also being investigated, interrogated and raked over the coals by the media). Here, again, is a woman, Ivanka Trump, the fair-haired daughter promising Americans free child-care and hoping her moment in the sun will equal the rising profits for the dresses and shows and baubles she peddles under her own brand. She has her own office at the White House and by virtue of being First Daughter (she is without any other qualification) is likely the most influential woman in the world.
There are many abhorrent facts about women who have risen because of the legacies of their fathers, husbands or grandfathers. One of the most irritating aspects is the assumption that these women somehow represent the best and brightest of their gender. Another fact is that the message it sends to other women, or rather girls, is that without such blessings of birth or marriage, it is not possible to win, to rise, to rule and overrule.
Many who argue in their favour, simply because they are women, insist that supporting those women who are available as leaders may not be the best option, but it is, as it happens, the best option. There is a simple problem with this premise: it is not perfection that the rest of us demand from the women which we wish to support; it is the fact that in supporting those who have climbed with the assistance of birth and marriage, we ignore those who have risen on merit. That is the evil that cannot be ignored.
It is always difficult to discuss an issue that is related to women in a forum that is open to men. It goes without saying that many men, alert as they are to any chance to deride Pakistan’s female half, will jump at any opportunity to do so here. For them, a woman saying that some women deserve power more than others is an opportunity to underscore the general unfitness of women. In doing so, they will provide an apt illustration of why women don’t win, why the tremendous united force of their hatred ensures that the hardworking woman, the self-made woman, the woman who should win, does not in fact win.
Source: dawn.com/news/1349015/the-women-who-win
----
Judicial Precedents in Pakistan's Power Struggle
By Omer Azhar Bhatti
02-Aug-17
Justice Mohammed Munir is a forgotten name in the political history of Pakistan but perhaps his indirect contribution to political upheavals and legitimising military dictatorial rules is essential. A judge of the Chief Court of Pakistan in 1954 (presently known as the Supreme Court of Pakistan), Justice Munir invoked Henry De Bactron’s doctrine of necessity, a doctrine which is the basis on which extra-legal actions by state actors, in a bid to restore order, can be termed constitutional. While hearing the appeal on Governor Ghulam Muhammad’s decision to dismiss the constituent assembly, Justice Ghulam Muhammad regrettably and preposterously argued that the wellbeing of the people was the supreme law, hence it was reasonable under the doctrine of necessity to oust the entire constituent assembly of Pakistan because it was ‘unrepresentative’. As undemocratic as this decision was, little did the Judge, politicians, legal experts and the distinguished journalists of the time realise that this doctrine would be a tool that would be used by dictators to attain approval, constitutional cover and a legal umbrella for their illegal actions. Fast forward to 1977 and the same doctrine was utilised by singlehandedly the most devastating ruler the country has seen, Ziaul Haq, to ensure his regime was perceived legitimate as the Supreme Court exonerated Zia’s decision to remove an elected government.
22 years down the road, the Musharraf coup gained a legitimacy label from the court under the same law of necessity. The precedent set by Justice Munir had a deleterious effect on Pakistan as it played an instrumental role in the broader stratagem of dictators to acquire legal cover and consolidate their rule. It became the very vehicle by which they were given clean chits for unconstitutional activities which strengthened their resolve and provided acceptability in public.
But first, the decision itself cannot be left undebated rather it deserves to be put under the microscope. In the first place, Article 62-63 can hardly withstand criticism for if applied literally, the assemblies will fall short of a hundred members in no time. Putting things in perspective, the section 62 1(D) of the article allows only for a person who understands and has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings, practices Islamic obligations and abstains from major sins is qualified. Now apply that to many parliamentarians, including Imran Khan no less and you won’t have many left behind unfortunately. Instead, the first head to roll might be the cricket legend himself. But the decision, irrespective of the comical aspects of Article 62-63, is hard to comprehend and controversial. So much so that the biggest English newspaper of the country has asked the Supreme Court to present a full review and scope of the judgement. Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed has encapsulated this accurately by arguing that disqualifying the Prime Minister on an account receivable which wasn’t listed in the assets section of the nomination papers is legally flawed. Dr Aamir Khan, a writer and business graduate from INSEAD highlighted the same legal flaw. This is primarily because the cash basis system is followed by individuals in Pakistan. In layman terms, any money that isn’t received yet is not registered as an asset until you actually receive it unlike the accrual basis of accounting in which companies register amount receivables as assets. Both the cash basis of accounting and accrual basis of accounting are acceptable under Pakistani law by virtue of precedents.
Legal matters aside, let us put this decision which will act as a precedent for times to come within the context of the institutional power tussle between civil governments and the military establishment
Legal matters aside, let us put this decision which will act as a precedent for times to come in context of the institutional power tussle between civil governments and the military establishment. Local and international media has already pointed to the fact that the inclusion of military officials in the JIT is a signalling of their influence in investigation. The significance of the establishment is such that without their backing and support, it would have been impossible to conduct a thorough investigation of this order. Just 3 years ago, Islamabad’s atmosphere was ripe with news about Imran Khan waiting for the umpire to raise his finger. Prominent journalists like Hamid Mir have pointed out that a conspiracy was being hatched by certain elements to pressurise the government through dharnas. During this term alone, there has been constant back and forth in the power corridors between Nawaz Sharif and the establishment over who gains most political space pertaining to foreign policy on the Indian front, control over development initiatives in CPEC and the Pervez Musharraf trial. In light of this power struggle, this decision can now possibly be manipulated in the future to take an elected Prime minister to court and be put under pressure through this precedent. The legal basis of disqualification is thin and eventually semantic while the overall argument is weak i.e. disqualifying a prime minister under Article 62 1(d). In country where constitutional loopholes like Article 58-2(b) and the doctrine of necessity have been manipulated, twisted and warped to overthrow civilian governments, another loose precedent set by this disqualification leaves another door open for ousting public representatives. In an institutional set up where the Supreme Court is actively expanding its remit to anything that is of public importance (seen by the very fact of entertaining of the case despite it being termed frivolous), a military establishment refusing to free political space for democratic politicians, this precedent has the prospect of upsetting the development of the institutions and norms that our democracy so desperately needs. This, in my opinion, forms the underlying logic to prominent legal expert Asma Jehangir’s statement that this decision will haunt the court in times to come.
Talking recently to a member of the Sharif family made it certain for me that there is a sense of victimisation and reservation over the Court’s decision. Some seasoned politicians like Asfandyar Wali and even Imran Khan himself, who claimed the article could not be implementable, have voiced their criticism. Only time will tell whether the precedent set by the honourable justices of the Supreme Court will prove to be as terrifying as the one set by Justice Mohammed Munir 63 years ago.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/02-Aug-17/judicial-precedents-in-pakistans-power-struggle
-----
Back To Square One?
By Umer Akram Chaudhry
02-Aug-17
Oliver Wendell Holmes, a remarkable legal scholar and US Supreme Court justice, expounded in his treatise The Common Law (1881) the theory of legal development as a story in the process of being written by judges based on practical realities and not a set of rules. Law is not, he stated, a ‘book of mathematics’. ‘The life of the law has not been logic,’ wrote Holmes famously, ‘it has been experience’. Based on this view, Holmes committed a number of follies that have tarnished his legacy despite his genius and dazzling writing style. In a series of judgments, Holmes delivered memorable judicial travesties leading to entrenchment of racial hierarchies (Giles v Harris), curtailment of free speech (Schenk v US and Debs v US), and upholding of forced sterilisations of person with mental disabilities (Buck v Bells). For substituting his own policies derived from experience for the text of the Constitution, subsequent generations judged Holmes, a legal giant, to be often less wise and correct than the Constitution.
In the story of legal developments in Pakistan, the Panama Papers majority judgment, delivered on 28 July, would be remembered as an anti-democratic judicial verdict. After weeks of oral arguments and a two-month investigation, a popularly-elected prime minister was sent packing for not being honest and ameen because he did not declare his ‘assets’ comprising of unwithdrawn salary of 10,000 dirhams from a company in UAE. From this reasoning, one suspects that the Supreme Court was looking for an excuse, even a slight one, which they eventually found, to cut short the tenure of yet another prime minister. Those who celebrate this judgment essentially celebrate the triumphant achievement of an end — the ouster of Nawaz Sharif — at the cost of proper means and procedures.
The summary manner in which the Supreme Court dealt a death-blow on the office of prime minister and probably the entire political class of this country is highly problematic. The core question — whether unwithdrawn salary constituted ‘asset’ which required disclosure under the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA) — has been addressed with remarkable haste and hurry. Relying on the lone authority of dictionaries, albeit being authoritative ones, the Court did not find it relevant to engage in any finer legal analysis of legislative purpose and intent, judicial precedent, common or technical usage, or consequences of judicial determination to interpret the term ‘assets’ under the ROPA. A dictionary was all that the Court needed to reach its conclusion that an elected prime minister be disqualified from holding a seat in the Parliament.
Panama Papers judgment will be remembered by many as one of those episodes of judicial activism whereby the Supreme Court preferred a Spartan view towards process in favour of achieving particular ends
What is even more remarkable is the silence of Panama Papers judgment on whether the Supreme Court invited any submissions from the parties on the core question pertaining to definition of ‘assets’ under ROPA. From this omission, as well from the newspaper reports, it is safe to assume that the Court did not undertake the endeavour of directing the parties’ attention to this consequential issue, which cropped up after the JIT report, and no opportunity to present arguments on this issue was offered. And, if this is indeed true, one wonders whether the parties in this case and, most importantly the former prime minister, not entitled under the principles of fairness, due process, and rules of natural justice to address the Court on this issue through his counsel? Seemingly, the Court only asked the counsel of prime minister about the prime minister’s entitlement to draw salary from Capital FZE. The response on this was in the affirmative. But no question was apparently posed regarding the equation of unwithdrawn salary with the term ‘assets’ under the ROPA.
The Court raised a new issue in the judgment and proceeded to answer it on its own without offering the parties an opportunity to address the argument. Why did the Supreme Court follow such an approach? It is not clear. It may be open for a superior court to raise an issue on its own accord (suasponte) and respond without the benefit of adversarial argument. Professor Robert Martineau, writing in a slightly different context, labelled this practice of courts as an exception falling under the ‘gorilla rule’ (ie, the 800-pound gorilla may sit wherever it wants). As no reasons are given, the Panama Papers judgement does not offer any explanation about why this rule of the jungle has been followed. Lest it be forgotten, the infamous State v Dosso case also suffered from a similar affliction, in a more grave and serious form, where Mr Yahya Bakhtiar could not have the opportunity to address the Court on arguments raised by it. Fairness and propriety demanded that the parties should have been offered a chance to argue on all crucial points, even if it was not mandatory procedure. To quote Justice Breyer of the US Supreme Court, ‘somewhat longer’ (and often fairer) way ‘round is the shortest way home.’
Panama Papers judgment will be remembered by many as one of those episodes of judicial activism where the Supreme Court preferred a Spartan view towards process in favour of achieving particular ends. The Court has sent Nawaz Sharif away for good, unless the review overturns the judgement, which is unlikely. But, the way in which Sharif has been ousted and the principles which formed the basis of his ouster do not reflect positively on the Court. The Court will retain its focus as a centre of political intrigue. Eager politicians will boast about receiving phone calls from judges. Adventurist judges may call on politicians to settle their scores in courts rather than through democratic process. And the prime minister’s office may remain forever crippled and compromised. Democracy will inevitably suffer, not the least because of undermining of judicial propriety. We are not back in the 90’s, and it will be wrong to state that we are as the Parliament is not dissolved. But are we that far away?
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/02-Aug-17/back--to-square--one
----
The Party Is Over
By Wajid Shamsul Hasan
02-Aug-17
The post Panama leaks charade has been the divine retribution all the way. When PPP Parliamentarians were moving the 18th Amendment they sought support of the other major political party in the Parliament- the PML-N led by Nawaz Sharif — to join hands to bury the curse of General Ziaul Haq — Articles 62 and 63 regarding the fictional notion of essential qualification to be member of Parliament.
In his insatiable lust for absolute power — MNS haunted by his dream of becoming Amirul Momineen — refused to join hands with PPPP. His preference to sustain 62 and 63 in memory of his political godfather was as lethal a contribution as was General Zia’s subversion of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s liberal and secular dialogical raison d’être for the establishment of a country where religion was not to have anything to do with the business of the state. And today he is reaping the bitter fruit of the seeds he thought he had sowed to make him all powerful.
As expected Mian Nawaz Sharif’s legacy has been fatally dented by the historic Supreme Court judgment of July 28 even if Mian sahib and his loyalists are putting up a brave face that though charged for mega corruption, he was disqualified for his UAE Aqama and for not taking his salary defined for tax purposes as ‘receivable’ — irrespective of the fact he had undermined the august office of the Prime Minister of Muslim world’s only nuclear power. In Daily Times on the eve of the judgment I had commented that it shall become a precursor to the future accountability process gaining momentum under the vigilant supervision of the higher courts.
A strong mechanism of accountability needs to be put in place to strengthen institutions rather than a few families or be used as weapon of political vendetta
I had forewarned that there is a lesson in the whole episode if seen from the political point of view. Since Pakistani politics revolves around families, and the power game is the preserve of a few influential families the country’s politics has been a hostage to oligarchies including dark state.
It is understandable that the PML-N’s media musketeers have ridiculed the judgment on the grounds that the major issue regarding London flats has not been commented upon but a non-issue was made a cause for disqualification. Prima facie it appears a justified objection but the loyalists are missing the main point or trying deliberately to deflect the attention about the whole case.
The real issue was telling Goebellian lies to the people about whom MNS and other public figures claim to represent. Known for their short memory, PML-N’s Chief Honcho and his band-wagoners forgot that American President Bill Clinton told the lie to the nation on Monika Lewinsky scandal and when proven wrong by the media and lawyers, he did not hesitate to tender apology and swallow what used to be the fruit of his pleasure in the Oval Office. Therefore, MNS and his legal eagles forgot the political picture in the whole episode which revolves around perceptions- irrespective of the claims he or his lawyers may have presented to the apex court.
There are no two views that the prevalent perception about MNS is that his family is filthy rich; the family lives like lords whether in Pakistan or abroad. His $ 3 million dollar wrist watch has been a subject of national and international media. Just imagine about a Prime Minister of a country which claims to be a nuclear power and who himself is fond of showing around in London’s classy watch shop toying with expensive watch with no guilt qualm to be leader of a poor country that had to eat grass to acquire nuclear teeth while keeping over million children without education, sustainable succour or even minimal healthcare. Just imagine about Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, whose rags to riches story cannot be quoted for emulation. His family’s alleged wealth agitates scores of questions as to what magic wand this family has got that their proverbial Midas touch turns dust into gold.
The judgment and the JIT findings lead into elusive money trail of the black money or white collar crimes to Gulf States. When one mentions the mysteriously shrouded Qatri Sheikh, it shows how shady things are done. Black money from Pakistan is sent to any of the Gulf state where one has contacts with local men in pelf and power.
The money is transferred through Havala, once it lands in a Gulf state it is whitened through the services of an established business house on payment of certain percentage. From there the whitened money is transferred into offshore company’s accounts. Once it is whitened, the money can be transferred anywhere in the world. For Pakistanis, the favourite destination is UK, Canada and US respectively. No wonder when one looks around he finds a Pakistani big wig doing the profitable rounds. Interestingly, this racket is just not limited to Pakistanis; black money from South and Central Asia, Russia as well as Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is siphoned off for onward transmission to the centres of capitalism in the West.
The disqualification of MNS has set the tone of future political paradigm. Known fly by night rich politicians who change their loyalties for safer pastures shall have to be extra vigilant when submitting their credentials for scrutiny for public offices. One would agree with PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari — who while welcoming the Supreme Court verdict — said that everyone should be held accountable for which necessary and effective legislation is the need of the hour.
Strong mechanism of accountability needs to be put in place to strengthen institutions rather than few families or used as weapon of political vendetta as had been the case during Mian Sahib’s second tenure when his Accountability Tara Masih Senator Saifur Rehman got forced conviction of martyred Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari from the Accountability court headed by Justice Qayum.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/02-Aug-17/the-party-is-over--
----
Descent into Chaos
By Zahid Hussain
August 02, 2017
THE gloves are off and it is a free for all. Politics is a dirty game in this country, but it has seldom been so ugly. In this no-holds-barred war of glib talk, the entire endeavour is to prove the rival more corrupt. While parliament is rendered dysfunctional, the apex court has become the battleground. The court, too, is subjected to criticism if the ruling is not in one party’s favour.
It may appear that the fate of many political leaders now hinges on court rulings in the petitions filed against them by opponents. Meanwhile, the democratic process is descending into chaos. The order sending an elected prime minister home for a misdemeanour is not the cause of a political order devoid of any moral bearing, rather it is reflective of one.
While the opposition celebrates Sharif’s inglorious exit, the ruling party is playing the ‘victim of an inexplicable conspiracy’ card. Sharif’s supporters are also waiting to see the fall from grace of Imran Khan and other senior members of the PTI implicated in cases of financial wrongdoing. Every side is trying to rock the boat that they themselves are in.
All rationality is lost in the haze of the politics of revenge.
All rationality is lost in the haze of the politics of revenge. There is much talk about democracy, public mandate and accountability, but one doubts that anyone is being taken seriously. The banality of these platitudes has been starkly exposed in the political soap opera that is being currently played out.
Indeed, the application of Article 62 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1976, by the Supreme Court to remove the former prime minister has led to questions of how many public office holders and members of the National Assembly and provincial assemblies can come up to the standards enunciated in Articles 62 and 63 if strictly applied. Surely, there will be very few.
So, the opposition political leaders who are rejoicing in Sharif’s unceremonious ouster must see whether their own accounts are in order before they too come under the axe. The cases against Imran Khan and Jehangir Tareen are already pending in the Supreme Court and the verdict is likely to come out soon. That may also open the floodgates of petitions that could overwhelm the top court. Given the extremely volatile situation stemming from the daily theatrics outside the court it could put the judiciary under pressure.
It was amusing to see lawmakers rushing to file their tax returns in the wake of the Panama case against the Sharif family. According to some reports, there has been a massive hike in taxes paid by lawmakers, from a 15 to 3,852 per cent rise in individual cases during this period. Indeed, it is a positive development. But the majority of the legislators still do not seem too bothered about what they believe is a temporary phase. They may be right given the lacklustre approach of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and other state institutions responsible for law enforcement.
The annual tax directories for parliamentarians shed some light on the level of tax compliance by the lawmakers. Surely, the lifestyle of most of them is in stark contrast to what their tax declarations indicate.
Few lawmakers are in the high tax bracket, notwithstanding their superior living standards. The money paid by most of them is peanuts despite the fact that many are believed to be among the richest people in the country. According to reports, some senators pay an income tax in the range of Rs17,000 to Rs50,000.
Such low tax compliance raises questions about the commitment of our political leaders to enforcing the tax laws they are supposed to oversee. Pakistan has a chronically low rate of income tax collection as tax evasion has become the norm and is hardly looked upon as a crime.
Thus it is not surprising that it is estimated that less than 1pc of the population files its taxes. Income tax evasion is particularly high among the wealthiest, leaving the country with one of the lowest tax-to-GDP ratios in South Asia. One certainly cannot blame the people for that when our rulers and lawmakers themselves do not set an example to follow. Indeed, the problem is not limited to lawmakers but extends to the entire ruling elite. Senior civil and military officials too are seen as part of it. A major reason is that law enforcement is much weaker when it comes to the rich and powerful.
Surely, it is not just about low tax compliance, but also about politicians living beyond their known means. That applies to both the government and the opposition leaders.
There are many who conceal their wealth in a clear violation of ECP rules. Yet they, unlike the prime minister, might escape being penalised under ROPA and Article 62. Certainly, there must be stricter accountability rules applied to the holder of the top public office. But it must not be seen as a selective exercise. The process of accountability must not be perceived as a one-time action targeting a particular person or a party. It should be viewed as a normal process of law enforcement across the board and not just limited to politicians.
Corruption is deeply rooted in our society and one cannot blame only the politicians for it. The security establishment that has ruled the country for so much of its existence is responsible for most of its ills. Eyebrows are rightly raised if the generals remain untouched.
It is, indeed, an extremely depressing state of affairs when the apex court is seen as a venue for settling political scores. What is needed is the reform of the entire law-enforcement system to make it more autonomous and ensure that it remains outside the influence of the government. This is one lesson we must learn from the Panama scandal. The Supreme Court must not be approached for settling every issue. The main responsibility lies with the political leadership. Democracy cannot be sustained without the rule of law and without making parliament more effective as an institution.
Source: dawn.com/news/1349016/descent-into-chaos
----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/restore-constitution-its-pre-zia/d/112054