Pakistan: Terminological inexactitude

Daily Times

Imran Khan’s two explanations (with a break in between for consultations) in the Supreme Court (SC) regarding the alleged contempt by him of the judiciary, failed to cut much ice with the three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry when the PTI leader appeared before it. In the first explanation by his counsel Hamid Khan, it was submitted that Imran Khan had not committed contempt of court nor could even think of doing so since he held the judiciary in high esteem. It went on to elaborate the PTI leader and his party’s struggle in the movement for the restoration of the judiciary. His remarks, considered contemptuous by the SC, were placed in the context of the PTI leader’s pleas to the SC to adjudicate his party’s complaints regarding rigging in the elections of May 11 in at least four National Assembly constituencies. In other words, the counsel argued that it was the high expectations from the SC that had disappointed Imran Khan to an extent that he lapsed into the ‘immoderate’ language that has offended the court. The bench however, advised the counsel to retire and submit a more ‘considered’ statement. This second explanation argued that Imran Khan’s statements were made in good faith and against the lower judiciary returning officers in the election. However, the court would have none of it and ordered the counsel to file a comprehensive written reply on August 28. Both before his appearance before the SC and after, Imran Khan appeared unrepentant and unapologetic, arguing he had said nothing wrong or contemptuous and therefore did not see the need to apologise to the court. The bone of contention appeared to be ‘terminological inexactitude’ over the meaning (and translation in parts of the media) of the word used by Imran Khan regarding the conduct of the elections and the ‘judiciary’s’ role during and after the polls. The offending word is ‘sharamnaak’, which some of the media have translated as ‘shameless’ and most as ‘shameful’. ‘Shameless’ is a much stronger word and arguably falls into the category of contempt. However, ‘shameful’ could refer to the conduct of their duties by the judiciary rather than the person of judges or the institution per se. While arguably ‘shameful’ may or may not be contemptuous, it is certainly derogatory. Nevertheless, even this subtle distinction did not help Imran Khan’s cause before the bench. Imran Khan has been sounding off since the elections on the following lines: the election saw the worst (?) rigging in any election in Pakistan’s history, and the lack of redress by the Election Commission of Pakistan or the SC was ‘shameful’. The SC bench patiently explained to the alleged contemnor that such electoral rigging complaints, under the law and judicial procedure, were referred in the case of 31 pleas by the PTI members to the election tribunals as the proper forum for dealing with such complaints. Imran Khan, on the other hand, is impatient with that route since he believes the election tribunals take far too long to deliver any verdict and arguably by the time they do, the next elections may well be round the corner. Hence his insistence that the SC, which otherwise has been known in recent years to utilise its suo motu powers liberally, should intervene to cut short the long winded process. In other words, Imran Khan, in the view of the court, demands special treatment. While it is understandable that Imran Khan and his party were frustrated by their inability to sweep the polls as they had convinced themselves before the voting they were poised to do (the ‘tsunami’ effect), it is not wise to vent that frustration at the judiciary or the undeniably slow processes that characterise our electoral and justice systems. In Imran Khan’s defence, the best that can be said is that despite being in politics for 19 years, he has yet to learn the difference between captaining a cricket team and participating in democratic politics. It has been apparent on a number of occasions that when Imran Khan’s wishes are not complied with, a streak of impatience, even arrogance, comes out on display. There are hard lessons to be learnt about the need for patience and fortitude in politics, even in the face of adversity, which our former cricket hero and admirable philanthropist would be wise to imbibe even at this stage. The contempt case in question has inadvertently framed a new reality: both the judiciary (in this case in the shape of the bench) and Imran Khan seem ‘disillusioned’ with each other. This may be a case of unrealistic expectations on both sides, but it would perhaps serve little purpose to drag the matter on indefinitely when the country is confronted with so many more serious problems. It is not for us to advise the court on a sub judice matter how to proceed. However, it may not be out of place to ask for restraint and an amicable solution, either through an apology (with Imran Khan swallowing his pride in the interests of the country’s delicately poised juncture in a gesture of statesmanship) or a milder treatment by the court (a rebuke perhaps?) to avoid convicting Imran Khan and sending him to jail, which would have the collateral effect of debarring him from politics for at least five years. The election commission and its tribunals too should revisit and speed up the matter of irregularity complaints in the general elections. This would help the election commission to restore some of its battered prestige after the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Justice (retd) Fakhruddin G Ebrahim soon after the presidential election debacle. The respect and dignity of the judiciary as an institution must be upheld by all and sundry if Pakistan is to institutionalize after long years of struggle a democratic dispensation with a clear separation of powers and defined (as far as possible) areas of purview. We can only hope that wisdom will prevail, no ego should dictate matters, and that the issue can be settled without too much damage.