Nawaz continues to pursue sanctity-of-vote strategy

Islamabad

Deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif pursued his well-thought out line -- sanctity of vote -- that he adopted during his four-day GT Road travel in a cavalcade and raised a dozen leading questions about the different stages of the Panama case in which he was disqualified.

The queries he pinpointed were also penned down in his review petition for the apex court to answer. They showcased doubts about the crucial judicial process. The lawyers’ convention was the first function he addressed after he had wrapped up his GT Road rally. He continued to have a sore throat.

However, ironically neither Nawaz Sharif nor any other respondent vehemently raised all these questions when they ought to have been concentrated earlier. Perhaps, they thought they would be able to earn a favorable judgment in view of their case, but it wasn’t there. They did point out some of these questions later when it was too late and the damage to their cause has been severely inflicted.

These queries focused on the rare creation of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), inclusion of premier spy agencies’ representatives in it, “mysterious” WhatsApp calls, functioning of the JIT under a three-judge bench, reliance on the dictionary meaning of a un-withdrawn, receivable salary, ignoring the statutes, four judgments in the same case, return of the two judges in the bench who had already handed their judgments although they had not been part of the proceedings on the JIT report, unprecedented monitoring of the proceedings at the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and accountability court by a judge, who had already delivered his decision, issuance of directions to the NAB, bypassing the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and harm to the independence of judiciary by putting junior trial judge under the apex court justice.

“I implemented the judgment the moment it was pronounced and relinquished my office, but I don’t accept it,” he said raising his voice. “Such judgments are not viewed with respect in history. This decision has also been placed in the same cabinet where judgments like those in the Maulvi Tameezuddin and Zafar Ali Shah cases had been put. Such decisions damage the very dignity and honour of the judiciary.”

During his GT Road journey, Nawaz Sharif adopted an aggressive line and there was no change in it when he opened his heart to the lawyers’ community. The basic purpose of his address to the lawyers’ convention was to take along this powerful segment in his movement against uninterrupted discontinuation of the tenures of all the prime ministers over the past seventy years. On the other hand, he stated, dictators ruled Pakistan on an average of eight years while elected prime ministers had only been allowed two years on average. “What does that say about our country? The sanctity of votes needs to be protected.”

The remarks he made were well-considered as he read out the prepared text instead of speaking off-the-cuff. His detractors have accused him of committing contempt of court by finding fault with the judgment during his GT Road speeches. However, there was no difference in his criticism of the Panama verdict between what he had stated earlier and what he said on Friday.

The focus and thrust of his entire discourse was on the treatment being meted out to all the prime ministers and stated that if he, as alleged, could not get along with the powerful circles, what was the fault of other premiers. Thus, he portrayed this accusation just as a ruse to justify his ouster. His obsession was to have respect for the prime ministers, let them complete their terms and allow the voters to decide their fate.

Likewise, he despised ouster of the premiers through sleazy machinations on phony and fake grounds with the sole aim of incapacitating the democratic system. He wished to shut down the windows and means through which democracies are derailed and elected leaders are sent packing.

Nawaz Sharif dubbed the judgment as a wrong decision delivered on wrong basis that needs to be overturned, and found a collusion of power and court gripping Pakistan into claws of dictatorship. He raised a number of suspicions and doubts over the entire process and stated that he was not a new victim of such kind of ejection for the first time. Previously, he was removed by a president, then by a dictator and now by a court.

He aptly recalled his own powerful role and lawyers’ forceful participation in the movement for restoration of deposed judges. “People of Pakistan have given numerous sacrifices for the judicial system and they expect justice to be carried out. There was no justice in this case against a leader elected by the masses.”

Once again, the ex-premier made it clear that he does not seek his restoration as prime minister, but restoration of people’s right to rule, and asked the lawyers whether there was any precedent in the history of judiciary when a judge, who had earlier given his decision, was made part of a bench that handed the final order.