Minutes after the Supreme Court allowed Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa to stay in his office for another six months, Prime Minister Imran Khan reacted to the top court’s judgement, calling it “a great disappointment to those who expected the country to be destabilised by a clash of institutions”.
Taking to Twitter, he said the fact that a clash of institutions was averted “must be of special disappointment to our external enemies and mafias within – Mafias who have stashed their loot abroad and seek to protect this loot by destabilising the country”.
In another tweet, Prime Minister Imran said 23 years ago, the PTI was the first political party to advocate for an independent judiciary and the rule of law. In addition, he said the PTI was at the forefront of the Movement for Independence of the Judiciary in 2007 and he was “jailed for it”.
“Also, for the record, I have the greatest respect for CJ [Chief Justice Asif Saeed] Khosa, one of the greatest Jurists produced by Pakistan,” the prime minister wrote.
The Supreme Court earlier today in its short order announced that Gen Bajwa will remain the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) for another six months, during which the parliament will legislate on the extension/reappointment of an army chief.
A three-member bench — comprising Chief Justice Khosa, Justice Mian Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah — announced the much-anticipated verdict after being assured by the government that parliament will pass relevant legislation within six months.
Commenting on the SC judgement, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi while talking to DawnNewsTV said the government had tried to assist the court and address its concerns. “I think this matter has been safely resolved and I do not see any ambiguity in it now,” he added.
Answering a question, he said the government will not need to amend the Constitution in order to carry out legislation as per the Supreme Court’s instructions.
Qureshi said there was “nothing lacking” in the government legal team’s performance in the top court, and that the procedure explained by them was based on past precedents.