Saner heads are speaking out about the NRO fiasco. The editorial writers at Dawn, for example, ask whether or not all the hues and cries about government not acting on the Supreme Court’s directives are really quite premature.
But is the government really in violation of the NRO judgment already? Does the Supreme Court have to first decide what it is going to do with the review petition filed against the NRO judgment before the government is required to act? These are technical questions of law, whereas thus far the criticism directed at the government appears to be anything but technical. We must await clarification about the true legal position before any comment on the government’s obligations is in order.
On the front page of this same newspaper, journalist Nasir Iqbal reports that suggestions of a judicial-military alliance are causing great concern among respected jurists of the lawer’s movement who view the idea as a death-knell for the independent judiciary.
Those making such calls should understand that in their innocence they were causing more harm than good to the cause of attaining the cherished goal of independent judiciary for which the nation had rendered sacrifices, observed Justice (retd) Tariq Mehmood, one of the pioneers of the popular lawyers’ movement, while talking to Dawn.
…
Eminent constitutional expert Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim expressed concern over the suggestion and said the executive and judiciary were two pillars of the state and if one fell the entire edifice would collapse.
It is important that saner heads prevail in this time and that decisions are made that strengthen the democratic foundation of government as a whole. It’s good to see that respected jurists of the lawyer’s movement are speaking out against the irresponsible recommendations of some.
