By Qamar Bashir
The government, in utter frustration and uncalled-for haste, without applying its mind or
consulting its allies, party leaders, or supporters, announced its intention to ban the PTI as
a political party. The origin of this decision is unclear. Neither a political, formal, nor
constitutional body framework was used to evolve the decision nor a formal process was
followed. Even those who initially directed our poor Information Minister to make the
announcement, whether willingly or unwillingly, appeared to have done minimal
homework.
The only consultative process which the nation witnessed was a meeting on their TV
screens, showing a silent and embarrassed Prime Minister, a downcast Chief Minister of
Punjab, and an unconcerned, detached, and aloof Nawaz Sharif at a meeting in their
Murree residence.
This troika meeting occurred after a previously summoned and then canceled PML(N)
top leadership meeting, leaving the nation guessing about the agreement or disagreement
on the government's intention to file the impugned reference.
As expected, this knee-jerk reaction mirrored the sudden and shocking announcement
made by the Prime Minister to launch the extremely important operation Azm-e-
Istehkam. The operation was mishandled like an immature endeavor, creating avoidable
controversy and opposition from the very beginning.
The timing of the decision, which coincided with the verdict of the 8-member Supreme
Court Larger Bench to restore PTI as a party and allocate reserved seats for women and
minorities, made the matter worse.
This government’s intention directly conflicted with the court’s decision, which declared
PTI a bona fide political party. The court’s ruling declared the Election Commission’s
decision ultra vires and unconstitutional, which had prevented PTI from participating in
the elections as a political party. The Supreme Court corrected this constitutional
anomaly and restored PTI's status to its position before the Election Commission's
misinterpretation of the Supreme Court verdict and relevant constitutional provisions that
had unlawfully stopped PTI from taking part in the election as a political party.
All those PML(N) and PPP leaders who are criticizing the Supreme Court for granting
unsolicited relief to PTI show a lack of their understanding of the Supreme Court’s
proceedings. All points being raised by them were thoroughly discussed by the SC. This
shows that all of them not only failed to follow the court’s proceedings but also did not
wait for the detailed judgment before committing to filing a review petition and
announcing their intention to file a reference against PTI.
Having diligently followed the proceedings of the SC in the impugned case, I can
confidently say that once the government will peruse the detailed judgments, they may
decide to withdraw their review petition and will desist from sending a reference to the
SC for banning PTI instead they they may realize the futility of both exercises.
Futility of this exercise became even more obvious when during an interview with a
leading TV channel, the Information Minister outlined points which, according to him,
would be sufficient for the Supreme Court to ban PTI as a political party.
One point was the dissolution of the National Assembly when the no-confidence motion
was in the field against the then sitting prime minister Imran Khan. This he touted as the
number one reason for filing the reference not knowing that this decision was
subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court, restoring the constitutional order, as actions
that have been corrected by the judiciary cannot logically or legally serve as a basis for a
ban.
The second charge was related to the incidents of May 9. This does not provide any solid
basis either, as most of the accused are facing the cases in several courts across the
country, with very few convictions but a lot of relief.
The third charge was the Toosha Khan case, which the prosecution has miserably failed
to establish, resulting in the accused being granted relief. The fourth charge was a cypher
case, which is also sub-judice at different levels and the accused have been granted relief.
In these cases the principle of individual responsibility applies, meaning collective
punishment of a political party for the actions of some members or supporters is not
justified under the law.
Another charge was the alleged hiring of a lobby firm in the USA by PTI, which
succeeded in convincing 368 members of the US Congress to declare the 2024 election
results highly rigged and demanded an independent inquiry to investigate the allegations
and provide justice. Perhaps the information Minister in the rush of emotion forgot to
appreciate that hiring a lobby firm is not a crime, and the resolution passed by the US
Congress does not constitute an official condemnation or actionable legal finding against
the state. These issues do not constitute grounds for labeling such actions as treason or
banning a political party under Pakistani law.
The next charge was a letter written to the IMF, sensitizing them over election rigging
and ensuing political instability while negotiating the Stand-by Arrangement. Raising
issues about election integrity, even on international platforms, falls under free speech
and political advocacy and these actions do not violate any laws that would justify a party
ban.
Above all these individual actions do not demonstrate that PTI as a party has engaged in
activities that fundamentally violate the constitution. Individual misconduct or poor
judgment does not equate to a systemic threat by the party. Moreover, there are sufficient
legal frameworks to address individual actions through criminal or civil proceedings.
These laws provide for punishment and retribution for specific illegal activities without
necessitating the extreme measure of banning a political party.
It is, therefore, in the greater interest of the government, PML(N), and its allied parties to
have heart and patience, wait for the detailed judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan,
consult its allies and like-minded parties, conduct deep research and brainstorming,
develop the pros and cons of any decision taken and its implications, and thereafter
develop an agreed-upon response before finally deciding to file a review petition against
the SC’s short verdict(s) and sending a reference to the Supreme Court for banning the
PTI.–Former Press Secretary to the President
Writer is Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France Former MD, SRBC
