by Mian Hameed 19 April 2022
“The Pakistan’s Supreme Court Justices: The Great Fix”
Some of our finest in the United States have used swear words for those involved in a U.S. supported regime change. For instance, the U.S. Secretary Cordell Hull is said to have used these celebrated words, “But he is our son of bitch” for Trujillo, a brutal dictator of the Dominican Republic. It is said, FDR has made the same famous memorable characterization of Somoza, a dictator.
These celebrated words are more meaningful to a ‘poor man’ that lives under rules of law explained from the intricacies in the Rule of Law Index score of let’s say, 0.39. The shortcomings of this score are that it does not characterize the sons or the mothers to a poor man. Why dignify bad judicial conducts with an index score when the Department of State’s, the White House’s and the street smarts’ languages can do equal justice.
The World Justice Project (WJP) March 2020 Rule of Law Index shows, Pakistan ranks 120 out of 128 countries, scoring 0.39; score of 1 show strong adherence to law. The index, for the third year in a row, “Sustained Negative Slide Toward Weaker Rule of Law Around the World.” –WJP March 2020.
This article is about the collapsed Justice system where a relatively poor country—Pakistan resides. Where should she turn to, to seek justice? The poor people usually cannot get justice. By extension, poor countries can’t either.
In one of my conversations with a practicing barrister in the United Kingdom, after exchanging pleasantries, he remarked, “A poor person in [the] U.K. cannot get justice.” This comment was in reference to a person attempting to seek justice with substantially lessor financial means against the richest class or the mighty corporations in the capitalist system.
It was not long after, that I could relate to what this barrister actually said. I shared a judicial Court’s account with this barrister. He exclaimed, “I have never witnessed this in the U.K.’s justice system. I don’t think it is possible.”
What I shared was, a Washington D.C. Superior Court Judge threw a case, favoring a multi-billion corporation. When asked, the pro se Plaintiff was given a doctored court transcript. Statements were added into the transcript to make the presiding judge look impartial. Numerous key statements by the Plaintiff were omitted. Many other statements made by the Plaintiff in bulk were claimed by the court transcriber as “indiscernible.”
A total sham was incorporated into a disjointed transcript, and was handed to the pro se Plaintiff in case he wanted to try his luck at the court of appeals. Such judges are appointed by the president of the United States.
A Federal Judge, Richard Posner, at the age of 78, told Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, he decided to retire from the 7th Circuit, because “of conflicts with his colleagues [all eleven of them]” and added, “most judges regard these people [‘pro se litigants’] as kind of trash not worth the time of a federal judge.”
Pakistan is like a pro se litigant and Pakistan’s Supreme Court Justices have regarded Pakistan as trash. The trashy treatment is evident from the Justices partial tactics—taking a Suo Moto action against the government, but failing to do the same against those committing the immoral crimes.
The chain of events leading to the No Confidence Motion (NCM) to ouster MP Khan, begins with a plot. Khan’s government became aware of a conspiracy, in which certain Member National Assembly (MNAs) in his cabinet took bribes and defected to overthrow Khan’s government.
In March 2022, the President of Pakistan filed a Presidential Reference, asking for the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) interpretation of Article 63-a, concerning cabinet members “Defection” and betrayal of cabinet members, where “Member engages in constitutionally prohibited and morally reprehensible act of defection, …” –Pres. Ref. Common sense dictates, the SC interpretation could not be pleasant for the MNAs in question. I contend, to float the “script” to ouster Khan from government, interpreting the Reference was not a priority—the SC did not rule.
The opposition filed No Confidence Motion (NCM) on or around March 08, 2022. The Deputy Speaker provided detailed reasoning in his ruling on or around March 28, 2022, to dissolve the National Assembly. The Chief Justice took a Suo Moto action relating to the dissolution of Assembly.
In the case of SUO MOTO CASE NO.1 OF 2022, dated April 07, 2022, the Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan and the opposition Party’s petitioners v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and the National Assembly Cabinet, the SC Justices ruled in order 1: The Speaker’s ruling of not accepting a resolution of a vote of no confidence is unconstitutional. The Justices decision does not mention under which article of Constitution the speaker decision is null and void.
In order 2, and 3, the Justices are clear that PM Khan could not ask the “President to dissolve the Assembly as contemplated by clause (1) of Article 58.” When a vote of no confidence resolution is pending, dissolving Assembly is not a Constitutional option.
The Justices’ orders are problematic because they have not ruled on the Presidential Reference, that more than likely will null and void the NCM. In which case the Assembly can be dissolved.
For the Justices to make the NCM live, their infringed minds had to give unconstitutional orders, violating Article 69. Constitution’s Article 69, bars the SC to interfere in any matters of the Parliament. The orders contradict the SC precedence set in Const. P No. NIL/2022-SCJ, April 2, 2022, “Under Article 69 […] validity of any proceedings in Parliament cannot be called in question.”
Article 69 states, the “Courts not to inquire Into proceedings of (parliament) –(1) The validity of any proceedings in (Parliament) shall be called in question” and (2) “No officer or member of Parliament […] shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any Court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.”
The Justices relying on Article 58 reasoning has to be a blatant aggression on Pakistanis, because the spirits of their reasoning is a child of a foreign policy of aggression. The influence from dictates is the reason for not interpreting 63-a, and ignoring the Deputy Speaker’s argument under Article 5, i.e., the NCM has nexus between treachery and the foreign interference.
A critique of this “Great Fix” in which the Justices are amounting to committing crimes against the State is warranted. The Justices have ignored the salient argument of the Minister of Law and Justice, which he used before the House Speaker to void the NCM. The Law Minister argued “that Article 5 of the Constitution provides that it is the basic duty of every citizen to show the loyalty to the state.” This argument is 1 of 10 of the ruling, became the salient basis for the Deputy Speaker’s ruling to dissolve the National Assembly.
The Justices have failed to take a Suo Moto action against those MNAs that have accepted bribes in a foreign conspiracy to sabotage a constituted government. The Justices have neglected to take Suo Moto action to examine the evidence shared with the National Security Council. This partiality rhymes with a nefarious plot.
In support of the petition under 63-a, the Law Minster argued before the Speaker of the House, “there exists a close nexus between such foreign interference and the campaign to oust […] Prime Minster Khan.” -Id. The close nexus is “the specific details about the foreign intervention and its link to the No-confidence motion.” –Id. Justices did not take Suo Moto action to view this evidence.
The Presidential Reference to interpret 63-a was filed before the Chief Justice’s Suo Moto action. The Justices decided to fast track the latter before addressing the former. There is no Suo Moto action against those allegedly disloyal to the State.
If the justices had addressed 63-a petition first, it would have had three implications. First, the disciplinary action taken by Khan’s party against the defected MNAs would have disqualified them to vote against Khan. Khan surviving NCM would have materialized the American threat—consequences to Pakistan.
Second, invoking Article 58 by Justices would have been moot after interpretation of 63-a, with inferences to defection from un-loyalty to the State. It would have validated the Deputy Speaker’s ruling under Article 5 to dissolve National Assembly.
Third, a reelection within 90 days would have restored Khan with the expected three-fourth majority. These outcomes do not align with the wisdom of the Pakistan Army, likely influenced by the U.S. threats.
With the aforementioned reasons, the Justices are more than likely a party to sedition or a treason.
The Deputy Speaker’s ruling references authenticated evidentiary letter of foreign intervention shared with the National Security Council. The communication in the letter involves the conversations between the Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs of Donald Lu, and the Pakistani ambassador to U.S., which calls for the removal of PM Khan.
More strikingly, from the answer of the Assistant Secretary Lu, to Hindustan Times, it seems the United States is involved in the Pakistan regime change conspiracy. When Lu was told, PM Khan “suggest[s] that you […] told him [Pakistan’s Ambassador, Majeed] that if Imran Khan survives the no-confidence motion, Pakistan is in trouble and the US won’t forgive Pakistan.” Lu replied, “We are following developments in Pakistan and we respect and support Pakistan’s constitutional process and the rule of law.” However, the White House spoke person denies any involvement.
The Justices have marching orders for the parliament in the remainder orders 4 – 13, are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is to interpret constitution. A higher purpose of these orders is, if not precisely followed, it will issue contempt of court. The speculation is to place Khan in jail.
One does not need a political scientist to understand the Justices’ orders. The highest court of the land has spoken to accommodate the vision of Pakistan army influenced by the U.S mandate. In democracy, the Justices ruling has rendered judicial terrorism upon Pakistanis.
Where can Pakistan file a writ of Certiorari (Judicial review)? The SC die is cast—no review there. Khan’s petition to review SC orders was turned away, stating the SC was closed, only to open the SC at midnight to accommodate some common man’s petition!
The people could not save Khan from the onslaught. Khan on the even of his ouster asked the reporters, if they knew anyone was not against him? Khan is said to have picked his diary and a bag, and vacated the PM House.
Khan’s petition is with the Power of the Powerless – The people, that did not resort to violence to dismember each of the, “He is our son of a bitch.” I take it, Khan’s supporters are peaceful Muslims and minorities in the wake of a blatant hit on democracy.
Dr. Mossadegh in 1953, made a critical error of banking upon the people of Iran to live through his democracy. The CIA successfully orchestrated a regime change.
The decision of the Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and his cronies is: To allow members to sell their votes – To allow convicts to hold high offices that are charged with corruption crimes, out on bail, and Nawaz Sharif has jumped his bail.
From the onset, it seems the Justices have done Pakistan an egregious wrong. Only a Court’s transcript can revive what is due to each, and unfold the balance of injustice.