Detailed judgement: SC upheld verdict in spirit of ‘constitutionalism’

ISLAMABAD: The detailed order of former military ruler Pervez Musharraf’s review petition of the July 31, 2009 judgment released by the Supreme Court on Thursday, maintains that the judgment under review does not stand vitiated by any bias or error in law to warrant review. A 14-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, also declared that, “Musharraf’s review petition has no merit; therefore, it is rejected on January 30. “The court is seized of a review petition against a judgment wherein neither the question of petitioner’s trial nor the retrospective or prospective effect of Article 6 were moot points. The argument qua this is therefore misplaced and is accordingly repelled,” it observed. Defending its July 31, 2009 ruling, the chief justice in his 45 pages judgment says that the July 31, 2009 judgment has narrated with a measure of dismay the frequent constitutional deviations in the country. “The spirit which underpins the judgment is a strong realisation that we should not remain trapped by mistakes in history and turn a new leaf towards constitutionalism and the rule of law.” The court also says that the petitioner’s counsel has not referred to any case in which, after his reinstatement for the second time on March 24,2009 the then Chief Justice passed any adverse order against Musharraf.

Meanwhile, in an additional note, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja said the Quaid-e-Azam would have been severely disappointed with the long list of constitutional deviations that this country has been subject to. “Perhaps, with the sounding of the death knell [in the judgment under review] for the concept of constitutional deviations and martial law, we have now started on the path to becoming the nation founded on constitutionalism that our founder envisioned.” He also says that the attitude of the petitioner in levelling allegations of bias against the former Chief Justice could become more comprehensible if looked at in the context of the petitioner’s career leading up to his appointment as the Chief of Army Staff. “We can only try to understand the motivation behind such allegations of bias. The inference, if any, to be drawn is not in relation to the court or the alleged bias of its former chief justice, it is to be drawn in relation to the petitioner himself. It appears that the petitioner, perhaps on account of his long service in the armed forces, may not have encountered dissent, disagreement or resistance to orders issued in a chain of command, necessary for a cohesive fighting force. He may, therefore, in his own mind, have considered the resistance to his unconstitutional proclamation of emergency, by the judiciary of the country including the former chief justice, as a manifestation of disobedience or insubordination and thus ill will or animus against him.” Published in The Express Tribune, April 11th, 2014.