ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court on Wednesday summoned the text of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s speech delivered on the floor of the National Assembly in which he mentioned that he had not asked Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif to act as a facilitator to end the political imbroglio.
However, the court observed that the army chief may give an affidavit mentioning the prime minister had asked him to play the role of a facilitator. But the army would have contacted the competent forum had it felt aggrieved by the statement of the prime minister, the court added.
The court observed prima facie the petitioners have locus standi (right to be heard) in the case, but it has to see whether the petitions for the disqualification of the prime minister were maintainable or not.
A three-member bench, headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, which heard the PTI and a high court lawyer’s petitions, said the issue of the prime minister’s disqualification under Article 63 (1) (g) of the Constitution could not be determined unless he was convicted by a competent court of law. The court said after the maintainability of the petitions those could be referred to the relevant forum.
Justice Dost Muhammad Khan, a member of the bench, observed the net thrown to catch one bird may entrap more than a hundred. He said the petitioners have to provide the evidence and cite the judgments of the court whether the applications were maintainable.
The bench observed the condition of ‘Sadiq’ and ‘Ameen’ for the parliamentarians was inserted in the Constitution by a ruler who himself was not ‘Sadiq’ and ‘Ameen’ as he had abrogated the Constitution.
The petitioner, Gohar Nawaz Sindhu advocate, pleaded that the prime minister had lied to the nation by saying that he had not asked COAS General Raheel Sharif to act as a facilitator to end the political deadlock. Contrary to that, the army spokesman had made it clear that Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif had been asked to play his role of a facilitator between the government and the protesting parties.
When the court questioned the petitioner what proof he had that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had lied to the nation, Sindhu replied that in a tweet, Inter-Services Public Relations Director General Asim Bajwa had made it clear that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had asked the chief of the army staff to play the role of a facilitator. Justice Jawwad stated neither the spokesman was present at the meeting nor did he show the army chief’s written statement to the media. The court remarked first of all it must be settled that tweet of the army spokesman had any legal status or not. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan said normally the ISPR director general issues a statement in the presence of media representatives. The petitioner contended that the prime minister had tried to malign the army by saying that he had not asked the chief of the army chief to play his role as a facilitator. As Nawaz Sharif had told a lie, he was no more a Sadiq and Ameen. He prayed to the court to cancel his National Assembly membership.
Just Dost Muhammad Khan said whenever any statement is published against the army, petitions are filed promptly in the court, but no one pays attention to the statements being issued against the judiciary.
Justice Dost Muhammad Khan asked the petitioner if the ISPR DG represents the army or the chief of the army staff. The petitioner replied ISPR represents the armed forces and their heads.
He said politicians are telling a lie not only in the parliament but also outside the House. He said the KP government had promised to supply gas and power free of cost and hold local government elections within six months, but not a single promise had been met.
Justice Jawwad S Khawaja said it was necessary for politicians to avoid telling a lie to prove themselves Sadiq and Ameen. He said courts do not announce verdicts on the basis of press clippings as they need evidence. He added only the prime minister and the army chief can give evidence regarding their conversation.
The honourable judge said the fact would be revealed only after the details of the meeting between Prime Minister and Chief of Army Staff were submitted before the bench, adding the army chief would have to give an affidavit mentioning the prime minister had asked him to play the role of a facilitator.
Sindhu contended that the ISPR was a representative body of the armed forces, adding the COAS’ statement was on the record. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan remarked that his written statement or affidavit was not with the court. Justice Jawwad said they could not give status to a person who does not appear before the court and whatever he says is not authentic unless it is proven.
The court questioned whether the army spokesman’s twitter message was acceptable under the law of evidence. The judge said if the army felt aggrieved by the statement of the prime minister, the chief of army staff himself or his representative should have contacted the competent forum for relief.
The court observed that the politicians considered it their right to tell a lie with the voters. Justice Dost stated the politicians, after coming to power, don’t fulfil the promises made in their manifestos.
Justice Jawwad said the doctrine of necessity had been buried and they would not allow its revival. He said the Supreme Court itself had struggled for the independence of the judiciary.
Sindhu argued that the Lahore High Court had wrongly dismissed his intra-court appeal.
The hearing was adjourned till today (Thursday).