ISLAMABAD: As the Supreme Court bench would be taking up the matter of the extension given to Chief of Army Staff (COAS) on Wednesday, political and defence commentators see the court’s intervention into the matter as a welcome sign to help remove the flaws and lacunae in such matters.
Critics believe that Minister for Law Dr Farogh Naseem and his legal team at the ministry of law had embarrassed the prime minister and his cabinet as well as Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Javed Bajwa.
The critics say that first cabinet approves such a summary, then prime minister approves it and then it is sent to the president for a nod. Perhaps this was the reason which compelled Farogh to submit his resignation as Law Minister during the emergency session of the federal cabinet.
Sources in the cabinet say that the cabinet took three steps to remove legal flaws in the extension order of the army chief. The steps included revoking the previous order for the extension, amending the Rules of Business of the Ministry of Defence.
“The federal cabinet approved the removal of the word ‘limit’ and adding the word ‘extension’ in the rule for the appointment of the chief of army staff. A new summary was then prepared and the cabinet approved it. Later, the summary was approved by the prime minister and sent to presidency seeking a nod,” a cabinet source said.
Sources hold the minister for law responsible for being reckless in handling the issue prudently. Reportedly, the government summary was sent to the presidency and approved on August 19 August and later the federal cabinet approved it on 21st.
Eminent leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Hamid Khan Advocate told Pakistan Today that the interim order of the Supreme Court was unique in our history.
“It’s a welcome sign that the Supreme Court has used its jurisdiction over such key legal issues. There were procedural flaws in the appointment of the army chief and later summary was sent to the cabinet bypassing the procedure,” he said and added that the court also raised serious questions on the merit of the case.
The court has raised very important questions which needed to be answered. There is no legal provision in the rules of business for giving an extension to the army chief. It is not statutory and an extension amounts to another term to the office and that is not there in law,” he observed.
Hamid Khan said though there were extensions given to army chiefs in past too and this question was never examined by top courts in the past.
“If this question had been raised by courts in the past, there would have been no extensions given to General Ayyub Khan, General Ziaul Haq, General Pervez Musharraf and even General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani. I think extensions are an abuse of authority. If no extension had been given in past, no martial law had been imposed,” he argued.
Former president of Supreme Court Bar Association Ali Zafar said that valid questions have been raised in the interim order issued by the Supreme Court bench.
“Procedural flaws and lacunae have been rectified by the government. In historic perspective, the law ministry’s procedural errors have to be decided by the court. However, it would be premature to say anything over it as the court would be taking up the matter tomorrow,” he added.
Advocate Shahid Rasool said that the ministry of law and law minister were solely responsible for the embarrassment faced by the federal government.
“Law minister’s incompetence has embarrassed the prime minister, the cabinet as well as the army chief. Now the cabinet has amended the rule by inserting a word ‘extension’ in Rule 255 of the defence ministry, we need to see how the court reacts to it tomorrow,” he said.
He said the law ministry being mother ministry should be held responsible for the chaos in the country. “The court has identified the same mistake and material irregularity. The court also observed its freedom on such a sensitive matter for the first time which is a welcome sign. Article 243 of the constitution empowers the prime minister to send an advice to the president to appoint heads of the armed forces,” he said.
Asked how the law minister could be held responsible for the lapse, Shahid Rasool said that Dr Farogh Nasim was a corporate lawyer and did not handle such sensitive matters.
