Falconer
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2008
- Messages
- 98
- Reaction score
- 0
Try as they might though some may argue they arent trying at all the Supreme Court and the executive just cannot seem to get along. Friday brought more unhappy tidings on two fronts.
First, the Supreme Court bench looking into the matter of the implementation of the NRO judgment expressed its dissatisfaction with the law ministrys response and directed it to prepare a new summary of what has been done to reopen cases and investigations against all the erstwhile NRO beneficiaries. Reading between the lines though, the court is quite upset because of the non-movement on a specific set of cases and investigations: those pertaining to President Zardari in Switzerland.
On this count, it is the government that must primarily shoulder the blame. In the review petitions against the NRO judgment one set of government lawyers has a different line on the Swiss matters to what the law ministry and Law Minister Babar Awan seem to be telling the NRO implementation bench. The only commonality is that all lawyers speaking on behalf of the government seem to be suggesting that the cases against President Zardari cannot be reopened. If that is indeed the governments line, then it needs to say so clearly and explain its reasons for saying so. At least that way the matter can proceed to the next stage.
Unfortunately, the executive is not the only institution flirting with the boundaries of standard responses. In a rather unexpected way, the investigation into the Bank of Punjab scam has turned into yet another judiciary-executive tussle. Since the 1970s, there has been case law in Pakistan to suggest that it is the executive that handles the investigative side of proceedings in any matter where a crime has allegedly been committed. However, in the Bank of Punjab case, the Supreme Court wants Tariq Khosa, a former director general of the FIA and presently serving as the secretary of the anti-narcotics ministry, to lead the NAB investigation. In more ordinary times, the response of the prime minister that Mr Khosa cannot be made available to head the NAB investigation may well have been unremarkable because it is the prime ministers prerogative to decide what jobs those employed by the government are entrusted with. But these are not normal times. Neither, for that matter, is the Khosa nomination completely free of question marks. The fact that Mr Khosas brother is the Punjab chief secretary has raised eyebrows given that the BoP scandal has reverberated between the previous PML-Q and the present PML-N provincial governments. Is it too late to hope better sense will prevail in all matters?
First, the Supreme Court bench looking into the matter of the implementation of the NRO judgment expressed its dissatisfaction with the law ministrys response and directed it to prepare a new summary of what has been done to reopen cases and investigations against all the erstwhile NRO beneficiaries. Reading between the lines though, the court is quite upset because of the non-movement on a specific set of cases and investigations: those pertaining to President Zardari in Switzerland.
On this count, it is the government that must primarily shoulder the blame. In the review petitions against the NRO judgment one set of government lawyers has a different line on the Swiss matters to what the law ministry and Law Minister Babar Awan seem to be telling the NRO implementation bench. The only commonality is that all lawyers speaking on behalf of the government seem to be suggesting that the cases against President Zardari cannot be reopened. If that is indeed the governments line, then it needs to say so clearly and explain its reasons for saying so. At least that way the matter can proceed to the next stage.
Unfortunately, the executive is not the only institution flirting with the boundaries of standard responses. In a rather unexpected way, the investigation into the Bank of Punjab scam has turned into yet another judiciary-executive tussle. Since the 1970s, there has been case law in Pakistan to suggest that it is the executive that handles the investigative side of proceedings in any matter where a crime has allegedly been committed. However, in the Bank of Punjab case, the Supreme Court wants Tariq Khosa, a former director general of the FIA and presently serving as the secretary of the anti-narcotics ministry, to lead the NAB investigation. In more ordinary times, the response of the prime minister that Mr Khosa cannot be made available to head the NAB investigation may well have been unremarkable because it is the prime ministers prerogative to decide what jobs those employed by the government are entrusted with. But these are not normal times. Neither, for that matter, is the Khosa nomination completely free of question marks. The fact that Mr Khosas brother is the Punjab chief secretary has raised eyebrows given that the BoP scandal has reverberated between the previous PML-Q and the present PML-N provincial governments. Is it too late to hope better sense will prevail in all matters?
