Everybody knows about the shoddy treatment meted out to the chief justice of Pakistan, Mr Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, by this moderate and enlightened government. He was confronted on March 9 by General Pervez Musharraf at his camp HQ and asked to resign. When he refused, he was detained until an acting chief justice was hurriedly sworn in and a Supreme Judicial Council of five judges assembled to “suspend” him for alleged misconduct and misuse of authority. Then he was escorted by the police to his residence, quarantined and deprived of papers, phones, computers and television. The “agencies” confiscated his papers and files. Earlier, the second senior-most supreme court judge, Mr Rana Bhagwandas, suddenly decided to leave on a foreign trip after a meeting with General Musharraf, fueling speculation that he had refused to participate in the conspiracy to oust Mr Chaudhry. As if to stamp its authority on the judicial proceedings, the government released a picture of General Musharraf in full khaki regalia lording it over the chief justice in judicial black.
In the event, the exercise has backfired. Pakistanis are outraged by that obnoxious picture and the subsequent handling of the chief justice. Mr Chaudhry is riding a wave of hostility to an unaccountable and arrogant military-dominated government rather than being a recipient of great personal sympathy. The SJC is also likely to be measured by the same yardstick of subservience to the military.
Two major questions arise. Why does General Musharraf’s establishment want to get rid of Mr Chaudhry? What will happen if this conspiracy succeeds or fails?
Mr Chaudhry, unlike his not-so-illustrious predecessors, has been stepping on the toes of the establishment for many months now. He shot down the New Murree scheme and Basant so beloved of the Punjab chief minister. He overruled the privatization of the Pakistan Steel Mills so beloved of the prime minister. He dragged senior police officers and bureaucrats to Islamabad and castigated them for spurning the rights of the poor and exploited. He stopped avaricious property sharks and conniving officials from turning public parks into golf courses or commercial centers for the rich. He ticked off factory owners for tearing up the environment laws of the country. He stopped sham educationists from setting up sub-standard medical universities. He took “suo moto” notice of thousands of everyday social and economic injustices against the downtrodden. But his worst crime was his insistence on enforcing the writ of habeas corpus in favour of hundreds of persons who had been abducted by the secret agencies of the military and confined without due process of law. Indeed, under his stewardship, the supreme court veritably became a custodian of human and fundamental rights as enshrined in the constitution. This was anathema to the establishment which has got used to its unaccountable and domineering status. But that is not the only reason why he had to go.
The country is heading into a period of constitutional crisis and political instability in view of General Musharraf’s stated objectives. These are: (1) re-election as president for another five years by the current parliament rather than a new one (2) remaining both army chief and president (3) holding the next general elections (4) winning them by a sufficiently large margin via suitable constitutional and political engineering of interim administrations, election commissions, and electoral rules barring leading opposition politicians. In this situation, a compliant rather than an independent chief justice will be the need of the hour. But Mr Chaudhry, increasingly, was perceived to be slipping out of the role earmarked for him. So he had to go now rather than later when he would be at the centre of a constitutional storm over General Musharraf’s attempt to achieve his objectives.
General Musharraf was advised that Mr Chaudhry was widely disliked by the bar and bench because he was rude and whimsical. It was thought he would crumble and resign when threatened with sacking by a SJC of peers who disliked him for personal reasons. And if he didn’t, the SJC would swiftly put paid to him, thereby clearing the path for a pliant successor. But his advisors failed to reckon with the growing disenchantment of the public with this government and the popular need, given the forced exile of the country’s top political leaders, for credible heroes to resist the military’s arrogant encroachment into the civilian domain. So where does General Musharraf go from here?
Round one has gone to Mr Chaudhry. With the public, bar and media solidly behind him, the SJC’s credibility and independence is going to be tested. If it sacks him, it will be seen as a puppet of the military and lose credibility. In the event, the judiciary will be emasculated and fail to provide succour to General Musharraf when he needs it most to bolster his legitimacy. But if the SJC restores him as CJP, he is likely to become a rigid obstacle in General Musharraf’s path. In both cases, instability and deadlock will ensue, compelling General Musharraf to resort to drastic action to try and prolong his rule. In the long run, it is a no win situation unless the general is prepared to share power and abide by the constitution.