- What happened when the country was shaken
26 November 2019 began as an ordinary day in Courtroom 1 of the Supreme Court, dull and monotonous like most of 2019, but pretty soon a swift turn of events turned it into a defining moment in judicial history. An application seeking withdrawal of a petition challenging the extension in tenure of the Chief of Army Staff, Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa, was taken up during normal course. However, the mercury began to rise as the bench started posing unprecedented questions to the Attorney General and inquired about the legality of the extension that was granted. A few more questions and further unconvincing responses later, the patience of the Bench ran out and the notification granting extension to General Bajwa was suspended.
With a history of political uncertainty and military supremacy, the people of Pakistan at first instance perceived the news to be part of a satire. However, within minutes of comprehending what had actually happened, there was uproar. Twitter rocketed within a span of seconds and developed new trends focusing on the suspension. A finger had been pointed towards the military establishment in broad daylight and Pakistanis couldn’t help contain their belittled excitement. By the mere suspension, the Supreme Court had established its dominance.
The suspension struck like thunder and awakened the drowsiest corners of the country. The PTI government somersaulted into an emergency Cabinet meeting and amended the Army regulations in a bid to outmanoeuvre the Supreme Court’s order pertaining to the process which was followed during the extension. However, apart from the apparent technical glitch in the extension, the Supreme Court in its written order further questioned the grounds on which the extension to General Bajwa had been granted. International quarters turned their eyes towards Pakistan as the news spread like wildfire.
As the Supreme Court resumed the hearing the next day, it brought with it the semblance of the Saqib Nisar days; a packed courtroom, minute-by-minute media coverage and the government being embarrassed. The General Bajwa extension case gained more media traction than Chief Justice Nisar’s entire tenure combined. The hearing began on an embarrassing note when the CJP pointed out that the regulation which had been amended by the Cabinet, in its hushed-up huddle the previous night, did not pertain to the Army Chief and was irrelevant. Amidst a lot of laughs, the AG tried his utmost best to convince the bench that the extension was granted in accordance with law yet, he failed to refer to the particular law which would enable the government to bestow such extensions.
Fiery debates continued on TV and social media and for the first time, the military establishment became the topic of open discussion for all. Most defence analysts blamed the judiciary for ridiculing and mocking the Army. Examples of Generals Zia and Musharraf were emphasised, without realising that the two had been autocratic dictators whereas the incumbent Army Chief was appointed following due process of law by a democratically elected government. No comparison can be drawn between General Bajwa and the likes of Generals Zia and Musharraf.
Despite what the pundits might say, the entire saga ended with a win for all. Institutional independence was established and the judiciary sent out a clear message; all irregularities, irrespective of the quarters they pertain to, are amenable to judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court established its dominance and overturned the decades-old practice of abstinence. It has once again been reaffirmed; there is only one umpire in the country and that is the judiciary
Three summaries and days later, the government finally gave up, bowed down and the entire saga came to an end with judicial restraint being exercised and General Bajwa being allowed to continue for a period of six months during which time Parliament shall legislate upon the extension of an Army Chief and settle the matter for times to come.
Certain inferences can, however, be drawn from the entire controversy that unfolded. Firstly, the federal government continuously displayed its ignorance and incompetence. It is not the judiciary which lowered the esteem of the armed forces but in fact the federal government which, owing to its ineptitude, embarrassed the Army Chief publicly. The cover-up ended up into a further embarrassment and brought disgrace to the government.
Freedom of speech had its day in the field as an institution, which was previously never commented upon, was openly debated about and positive critique was extended from a number of quarters. Twitterati lashed out in all directions, lambasting the government, judiciary and the military respectively. A wide range of commentators blamed the CJP for destabilising the country by calling into question the legality of the extension. What most of them fail to comprehend is that the CJP never pointed a finger towards the military establishment throughout the entirety of the proceedings. The Supreme Court’s sole focus remained on the government and the law from which the authority to grant extensions was being, purportedly, derived. The bench merely dispensed its duty and was basically doing its job; keeping the executive in check.
An important post of the Chief of Army Staff, sways into uncertainty owing to lacunas within the law and by pointing out the same, the Supreme Court has done a great service to it. Henceforth, proper laws will be enacted and the legality of the office of the Army Chief will never be called into question again. The federal government, on the other hand, needs to reconsider its abilities and carve out a framework under which it should operate so as to avoid such embarrassment in the future.
Despite what the pundits might say, the entire saga ended with a win for all. Institutional independence was established and the judiciary sent out a clear message; all irregularities, irrespective of the quarters they pertain to, are amenable to judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court established its dominance and overturned the decades-old practice of abstinence. It has once again been reaffirmed; there is only one umpire in the country and that is the judiciary.
Most observers have taken a back seat, now that the short order is here, but some keen students of law, including myself, eagerly await the detailed judgement which is to follow. The actual response to the questions raised would be found therein. The impartiality and independence of the judiciary has, nonetheless, been established and there is little room left to question the same.
