Asia Times: Pakistan's Supreme Court backs military rule


	May 16, 2000	atimes.com

India/Pakistan

Pakistan's Supreme Court backs military rule
By Muddassir Rizvi

ISLAMABAD - No one was surprised by the recent approval by Pakistan's highest court of last year's military takeover in the country, but the strong public reaction to the expected ruling should cheer friends of democracy.

Political parties, media commentators and rights activists have hit out at the Supreme Court's decision, which was made on May 12, in unexpectedly strong manner.

Ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's lawyers described Pakistan as a ''politically primitive'' nation and not fit for democracy. ''[The] provisions relating to fundamental rights in our constitution are meant for highly sophisticated societies and not for a politically primitive country like Pakistan,'' said Ijaz Batalvi, one of the lawyers of the deposed prime minister.

In its ruling on seven identical petitions challenging the October 12, 1999, toppling of Sharif's elected government by the army, the apex court allowed three years for the military rulers to implement their programs.

Justifying former army chief Pervez Musharraf's takeover under the ''doctrine of state necessity'', the court asked him to hold polls within 90 days of the granted period that expires on October 12, 2002.

This is the fourth time that the country's highest court has justified the removal of an elected government by the army. Beginning with the approval of Ayub Khan's martial law regime in the late 1950s, the judiciary upheld actions of military rulers Yahya Khan and Zia ul Haq in the late 1960s and 1970s.

''Pakistan's Supreme Court has earned the dubious distinction of being the only court of law in contemporary judicial history to have determined how long a government, that too a military junta, could continue to rule,'' wrote Najum Mushtaq in the daily The News. ''That there was not a single voice of dissent from the 12-member bench . . . is an indicator of the shape of democracy to come.''

According to Pakistan Bar Council member Hamid Khan, the period for the restoration of representative rule given by the apex court is too long. ''Even the military rulers might not have had such a long time-frame in mind,'' he said. Local council polls are scheduled within a year and the military rulers might have followed this up with provincial and federal polls, he said.

The chances of the the military rulers speeding up the timetable for the restoration of democracy were seen to have brightened after US President Bill Clinton's brief stopover in Islamabad earlier this year. Musharraf had announced the restoration of elected local institutions on March 23, on the eve of Clinton's visit.

Vehemently criticizing the ruling, the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan attacked the military rulers for undermining the independence of the judiciary. ''The government has jeopardized the independence of the judiciary by forcing the judges to take a fresh oath [of allegiance to the military rulers],'' the commission observed.

The rights body was referring to the controversial step by the military rulers forcing the Supreme Court judges to take a fresh oath of office as the apex court was getting ready to take up the petitions against military rule in the last week of January.

The oath was taken under the Provisional Constitutional Order, which barred them from taking any action against Musharraf. Five senior judges, including the chief justice, had declined and were replaced by those who swore allegiance to the military rulers.

Prominent human rights lawyer and democracy activist Asma Jehangir lamented that the Supreme Court ruling had deprived Pakistanis of their fundamental rights. Political parties too hit out at the ruling and questioned the independence of the judiciary.

''The decision has buried democracy in the country for three years,'' said Zafar Ali Shah, a senior leader of Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League, who was one of the petitioners.

The party of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, too expressed its ''disappointment'' at the validation of the military rule. ''The decision has come as a big disappointment to the people of the country who were looking forward to the restoration of democracy and representative rule,'' said a party spokesperson.

Media commentators have criticized the judiciary for having ''magnanimously granted'' the military rulers the freedom to alter the constitution.

However, not all disapproved of the verdict. According to a Lahore-based lawyer Raza Kazim, ''courts have no business to give ideological and political leadership to society''. ''Had there been a strong reaction from the people against the military takeover, the court judgement would have reflected it,'' he argued. Abid Hassan Minto, a former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, agreed with this.

However, the two overlooked the fact that despite the strong public reaction against Zia ul Haq's takeover in 1977, the then Supreme Court had cleared the military action as the need of the hour.

Constitutional lawyer S M Zafar said the judgement would help the country return to democracy. ''By providing a road map for the restoration of representative institutions, it would help ease the country's isolation in the western world,'' he said.

(Inter Press Service)

back to the top

�1999 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd.

asian sex gazette