IN a case mired in political rivalry and a civil-military stand-off, the Supreme Court`s Friday verdict has raised questions about the apex court`s interpretation of fundamental rights. by accepting the grounds of Nawaz Sharif`s petition and going beyond that to appoint an unusually high-powered judicial commission to probe `memogate`, the SC seems to have accepted the security establishment`s stance: the memo should be treated as a serious threat to national security, and that it is the SC`s job to get to the bottom of it. but this is no ordinary case. It has evolved into one with far-reaching implications for the role of the judiciary and the military in the business of running the country, and Friday`s judgment sent a number of worrying signals about the SC`s views on these matters. For one, the court accepted that the memo is a matter concerning fundamental rights, and therefore worthy of being entertained by it. this is, at best, a controversial claim, one that broadens the concept of fundamental rights beyond its generally accepted definition.
Second, the court`s appointment of a judicial commission to investigate the matter has given the memo a debatable degree of credibility. The commission is headed by three sitting — not retired — judges, and they are all high court chief justices. As such, it reflects a level of seriousness not attributed to other cases in which judicial commissions have been set up, such as the May 2 raid, the murder of Saleem Shahzad and the missing persons case. What happens if the findings of such a body are at odds with those of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security, which has already been investigating the matter? The SC`s verdict reflects, then, a willingness to wade further into a deeply politicised matter in which the country`s most significant opposition leader has picked a battle with the government. In the circumstances, the PCNS, with its multiparty membership, would be a more appropriate forum to sort out the issue. There is also the matter of outcomes: a judicial inquiry reflects a willingness to entertain criminal charges, another controversial issue given that this is yet to be regarded as a clear-cut case of treason. having said that, we hope that the judicial commission, whose members comprise respectable jurists, will take the probe to its logical conclusion.
Print this Post Email this Post
Recent Comments