By Qamar Bashir
Former Press Secretary to the President
Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former MD, SRBC
On the 15th of December 2023, the judiciary faced an immense challenge: safeguarding the impending elections scheduled for the 8th of February. The judiciary successfully averted attempts to sabotage, excessively delay, or even indefinitely postpone the elections. Such actions could have derailed democracy, leading to the imposition of an alternative system, the form and structure of which would have been uncertain and potentially detrimental to the nation’s democratic process and stability. The impact of such disruptions could have been monumental, causing severe repercussions for the country’s governance, rule of law, and the citizens’ rights to participate in a fair electoral process.
The Supreme Court in the last two consecutive days asserted its authority and independence like never seen before. Day before yesterday (14.12.2023) it issued notices to the two spymasters to defend the charges of manipulating the election 2018, manipulating the superior judiciary to constitute benches of the judges cultivated by them, pressurizing the judiciary to keep the Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Nawaz in Jail until the conduct the election 2018 and visiting the judges of the superior judiciary in private to pressurize them the give the decision in the impending political and administration case the way ISI wanted. please refine
The Supreme Court displayed unwavering determination to prevent any attempt to disrupt the upcoming elections. The court’s extraordinary commitment was evident as it convened late into the evening, forming a three-member bench with available members, bypassing the usual protocol of bench constitution outlined in the Supreme Court Practices and Procedure Act. Despite the absence of the primary petitioner, PTI, the court proceeded with the session and announced its decision while still in session, led by the Chief Justice. At one point, when a lady lawyer interrupted the Chief Justice during the order dictation, the court responded sternly, rebuking the lawyer and instructing her to sit at the rear benches while maintaining silence. This resolute stance highlighted the court’s uncompromising dedication to ensure the integrity and timeliness of the electoral process.
The Supreme Court, despite being in a live session, openly expressed its discontent with the Chief Justice of the Lahore court. The single-bench order suspending the training of Returning Officers (ROs) and District Returning Officers (DROs) was critiqued by the Supreme Court, as it provided grounds for the Election Commission to delay announcing the election schedule. During the proceedings, the three-member bench was primarily supported by the Election Commission’s lawyer and the Attorney General, with no representation to defend the initial petition filed in the Lahore High Court. The Election Commission’s lawyer sought to challenge the Lahore high court’s order which had suspended the Election Commission’s notification regarding the training of DRs and DROs.
When questioned by the Chief Justice, the Election Commission clarified that it hadn’t issued the Election Schedule yet, intending to do so after the training sessions concluded. However, this response triggered the Chief Justice’s ire directed toward the Election Commission. He vehemently criticized the Commission for attempting to leverage the Lahore High Court’s order to postpone the announcement of the election schedule. The Chief Justice firmly asserted that the training and the schedule announcement were distinct matters and held no direct correlation, deeming the Election Commission’s attempt to link them as a malicious tactic to delay the electoral timeline.
Despite attempts by the lawyers and the Election Commission’s representative to defend their position, they couldn’t substantiate any constitutional or lawful basis linking the announcement of the Election Schedule with the training of the ROS. When questioned repeatedly by the Chief Justice about the schedule’s announcement, their response of “soon” didn’t satisfy the Court. Frustrated by the lack of a clear response, the Chief Justice sharply rebuked them, affirming that the election schedule must be issued that day, despite having only three hours left until midnight.
The Chief Justice made a resolute statement to the nation, affirming that while the Supreme Court won’t micromanage institutions, it remains committed to ensuring their proper functioning. He stressed that any attempts, regardless of their size or influential backing, to delay or postpone the elections will not be tolerated. Such actions would be deemed contempt of the Supreme Court and face severe consequences.
The Court’s steadfast and decisive stance in safeguarding the constitution, the law, and democracy itself has quelled numerous narratives seeking to postpone or indefinitely delay the elections. These narratives, propagated in the media and public spheres, aimed to disrupt the constitution, disregard the law, and harm democratic institutions. The Supreme Court’s principled stand has curbed these attempts to protect the integrity of the nation’s democratic process.
The narrative to extend the interim government until economic revival, improved security, and counter-terrorism measures were achieved lacked constitutional backing. Implementing this narrative without an elected government’s legitimacy could have severely damaged the nation’s democratic principles and international standing. It might have triggered economic collapse, jeopardized global financial operations, and led to severe currency devaluation. This move could have eroded trust in democratic processes, limited citizens’ rights, and disrupted governance by subverting the electoral mandate essential for accountable decision-making. Such instability might trigger social unrest and portray a power grab rather than national interest, sparking protests or civil disobedience.
Internationally, postponed elections might tarnish a country’s democratic image, straining diplomatic ties and aid packages.
Delaying due to terrorism threats risks compromising democratic values and empowering extremist groups, undermining citizens’ rights and democratic principles. The solution lies in reinforcing security measures to ensure safe elections, rather than postponing them. Upholding the election schedule despite security challenges showcases resilience against terrorism, safeguarding citizens’ rights and democratic foundations.
Delaying elections due to bad weather, despite being advocated by certain groups, lacks constitutional standing and is an unsubstantiated pretext. Around the world, election authorities implement contingency plans to ensure smooth elections, even in adverse conditions. Such delays may compromise fairness and representation in affected regions, undermining democratic principles. Balancing concerns about voter turnout with ensuring equal opportunities for all citizens in the electoral process is crucial. Such precedents could pave the way for future challenges to delay elections, potentially eroding democratic values. Countries facing harsher weather conditions employ alternative measures like transportation assistance, extended voting hours, or temporary polling stations to facilitate voting.
The resolute stance taken by the Supreme Court to ensure the elections proceed on schedule stands as a beacon of hope for upholding democratic principles and constitutional sanctity. The court’s unwavering commitment to safeguarding the electoral process against any disruption, whether through frivolous petitions or attempts to delay on flimsy pretexts, underscores the paramount importance of timely and fair elections.
The dismissal of baseless narratives seeking to derail the electoral process, including the Lahore High Court’s actions, signals a clear message: any attempt to impede the electoral schedule will be met with the severest consequences under the law.
Upholding the sanctity of elections not only reinforces the democratic fabric but also reinforces the citizens’ right to choose their representatives, ensuring the peaceful transfer of power and preserving the nation’s integrity. The Supreme Court’s firm stand in this critical juncture resonates as a testament to the resilience of democratic values and the unwavering commitment to uphold the rule of law above all else.
Comments are closed.