THOUGH the Supreme Court was informed that the government and the opposition PTI were in contact and a meeting of the political leaders representing various parties will be held after Eidul Fitr, which prompted the court to give time to the parties to arrive at a consensus on the issue of general election but there seems to be no visible improvement in the ground situation and the prevailing deadlock is expected to prevail even after Eid holidays. For reasons known even to a layman, the PTI and the Supreme Court want general election or at least elections of the Punjab Assembly before September while the coalition government is adamant to hold them in October, a date for which has already been proposed to the apex court based on input from the security institutions.
Interestingly, the three-member Bench of the top court was seized with the issue of holding elections for the Punjab Assembly but now focus of the court has shifted to a general election and the remarks made by the members of the bench are prompting the coalition partners to complain that the court has a tilt towards the viewpoint of the PTI and has least concerns for constitutional or legal aspects. The coalition leadership maintains the court is trying to rewrite the Constitution to facilitate the return of PTI to power. They point out that on the one hand the three-member bench insists its order fixing polling date in Punjab for 14 May is still in the field and that it is incumbent upon all state institutions to help implement it but at the same time it says the date can be changed if agreed to by Imran Khan. Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial also remarked that it was not a joke to withdraw the decision to hold polls in Punjab on 14 May but elections can be held in July. They are also questioning why the entire focus of the court is on elections in Punjab while there is hardly any mention of holding immediate elections in the KP where too the provincial assembly stands dissolved.
No doubt, in their statements before the three-member bench on Thursday, representatives of all those parties attending the proceedings expressed their willingness to hold talks on the issue of simultaneous elections in the country but as things stand today there is no flexibility in their stated positions so far. PPP’s Farooq H Naek informed the court that a process for conducting such dialogue had been initiated within the coalition partners of the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) and that it was agreed that heads of all the political parties would meet with the opposition parties to arrive at a consensus date for holding the general election to the five assemblies simultaneously. This position was supported by representatives of other coalition parties including Khawaja Saad Rafiq of PML(N) while PTI Vice Chairman Shah Mahmood Qureshi assured the court that notwithstanding the misgivings of his party with the political environment and disposition, his party was willing to move forward within the framework of the Constitution to negotiate on an agreed date for holding general election to the five assemblies simultaneously. However, moves and tones outside the court were not in line with this reconciliatory approach. Head of the ruling PDM Maulana Fazlur Rehman, in a hard hitting news conference, firmly rejected the possibility of any talks with Imran Khan saying he did not consider him (Imran) eligible for dialogue. His statement that if the verdict of the court was imposed with force, they will not knock the doors of the court but will go straight to the court of the people gives an idea of what strategy the coalition parties would adopt if the court did not address their reservations and points. Notwithstanding the efforts being made by his party vis-à-vis dialogue process with the opposition, PPP Chairperson Bilawal Bhutto Zardari followed the tone of Maulana Fazlur Rehman in retorting a conspiracy is being hatched to impose ‘one unit’ in the country, adding consensus unlikely if talks forced at gunpoint. And speaking at a ceremony to launch a mobile app of the 1973 Constitution, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif highlighted that the Constitution has its roots in parliament and according to the world recognized concept, the judiciary can only interpret the law and cannot rewrite it. In a related development, the Supreme Court has asked the Government to release funds for elections in Punjab by 27 April, the date the three-member bench would resume hearing but Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif has ruled out the possibility of provision of funds as parliament has barred the government from doing so. Therefore, what happens on April 27 is now contingent upon what transpired a day earlier in the proposed dialogue of the political parties and how the court views its outcome. It is practically next to impossible to hold elections in Punjab on 14 May as ordered by the apex court, especially when no funds are available and the relevant institutions have already expressed their inability to spare necessary manpower for the purpose.
The constitutional deadline of 90 days has already expired and as pointed out by Emir JI Siraj-ul-Haq in his statement before the SC bench the polls have already been delayed by 105 days and can be even held after 205 days. The Supreme Court, in all likelihood, would give a new date for polling in Punjab if there was no consensus among the political leadership on simultaneous elections to national and all the four provincial assemblies on the same date. It would be appropriate that before giving a fresh date, the court should accommodate reservations expressed by the coalition parties and dispel the impression that it has any agenda other than faithful implementation of all the provisions of the Constitution. The impression of lop-sided justice would give reasons to the affected parties to implement their threats of going to the court of the people. ANP has already threatened to come to Islamabad after Eid and JUI (F) is also thinking on similar lines. PTI, along with a segment of the legal community, is also hinting at launching a movement in support of the three member bench. The situation could take an ugly turn if the government opts for counter measures in case of a hostile court verdict as is being widely reported by the media. All this could lead to a civil war the consequences of which must be understood fully by all stakeholders. Foresight is needed to handle the situation with due care as there is no room for egoism or inflexibility.
