Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Friday remarked that the Supreme Court will proceed to implement its verdict for holding elections in Punjab on May 14 if talks fail between the government and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) for resolving the impasse on a single day for general elections.
Resuming hearing of a petition seeking simultaneous elections across the country, a three-member bench comprising the CJP and Justices Ijazul Ahsan and Munib Akhtar was informed by Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan that the government had submitted its response on talks, adding that Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) lawyer Farooq H. Naek would brief the court on the dialogue.
Taking the rostrum, Naek said the negotiations had been held at the office of the Senate chairman, who had played the role of facilitator. He said there had been five rounds of talks, adding that the ruling alliance had shared the country’s dire economic situation—and ongoing negotiations with the IMF—with the PTI, which it had accepted. He said the ruling alliance had agreed during talks to dissolve the National Assembly in August, but deadlock persisted over a date for simultaneous elections nationwide.
In response, the CJP questioned why the IMF agreement had been emphasized in the government’s response. “The issue in the court is constitutional, not political,” he remarked and sought an explanation for why the approval of the IMF agreement and trade policy was necessary. Naek explained that the IMF was “necessary” for the next fiscal year’s budget, adding it could not be approved if the assemblies were dissolved before it was presented in Parliament. “If the Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa assemblies had not been dissolved, this crisis would not have occurred,” he said, adding it was wasting the court’s time.
The CJP then questioned whether the IMF loan would be added to the government’s fund reserves or used to repay debts. “Only the finance minister can give this answer,” Naek responded. To this, the CJP asked whether the PTI had “recognized or rejected” the importance of the budget.
The CJP continued by saying no one could deny that the Constitution requires elections to be held within 90 days of an assembly’s dissolution, which the PPP’s lawyer assented to. “The court has already given a decision on holding elections in 90 days,” he said, adding he had heard both sides’ positions in TV talk shows the night prior. “We will use the Constitution to ensure that the court’s order is followed,” he said of the May 14 polling date, adding it would be better for politicians to sort the matter.
Seeking to defend the court against allegations of “not abiding by the Constitution,” he claimed the court had always respected everyone’s opinion and did not respond to any criticism. “We do not even get angry, because if we do our decisions may be affected,” he said and urged Naek to compare the “level” of the conversation at the court and at the National Assembly.
Naek then asserted that the court would have to re-examine the issue of conducting elections in Punjab within 90 days, as results for polls to the National Assembly would not be acceptable if they were conducted without a caretaker setup. “When the [case began] on Feb. 23 you started pointing fingers. All these points were not raised at that time?” questioned the CJP, while remarking that the government had not taken the constitutional process “seriously.” To this, Naek noted that the court had refused to hear the government. The CJP then responded that the government had boycotted proceedings and the apex court had likewise said “goodbye” to the government. Claiming the government had not tried to get a judgement on the matter, he claimed it had just argued on whether the suo motu petition had been rejected or accepted.
“When Justice Athar Minallah raised the point of restoring the assemblies, the government was not interested,” he remarked—despite himself having removed the judge from the bench hearing the case before the matter was to be taken up. “Just look at today’s conversation, no one is talking about rulings or law,” he said and criticized the government for not filing a review petition to the election date ruling. “The government is showing interest in politics and not in law,” he remarked, noting the country was facing security and economic concerns.
At this point, PTI lawyer Ali Zafar—who was also part of its negotiating team—took the rostrum and acknowledged that both sides had shown willingness to conduct polls simultaneously. However, he added, the might use further negotiations to prolong the issue. “Everyone has to follow the decision of the Supreme Court,” he said, adding the government had been unwilling to dissolve the National Assembly on the date sought by the PTI.
Railways Minister Saad Rafique then took the rostrum and said the Supreme Court had been committing injustices against the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) since 2017. “The Constitution mentions holding polls in 90 days but also talks about free and fair elections,” he said, warning polls in Punjab prior to the rest of the country would just create more problems. “We have lost half the country over elections once. Holding polls in just one province may be destructive,” he said, recalling polls had earlier been delayed during the 1988 floods and after the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.
The PMLN leader then recalled that the court had yet to hear the government’s review petition on the Article 63A case from last year. “We are putting up that petition. The attorney general has been informed about it,” responded CJP Bandial, lamenting that the court had no time for other cases due to the present case. Rafique, however, persisted that additional time could yield better results.
The CJP then continued by comparing elections in Pakistan to other countries and said the budget could be presented early. “It is not necessary that the budget should be presented on June 30,” said the top judge, adding the issue must be concluded for the sake of the country. The minister then said there was already consensus on three points and more time could do the same for the fourth. “The current break in ongoing talks is not that huge,” he said and urged the court not to issue any new directions and allow talks to proceed.
The CJP said the court would not interfere in the negotiations or give any instructions. “Today is Friday. If negotiations are to be held, they should be started,” he said, adding that if talks did not resume, the matter could be looked into again after 2-3 days.
The petitioner then urged the government to file a review, adding the ECP’s request for review had already been filed. He also proposed securing the positions of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and PTI chief Imran Khan via video-link. The CJP rejected this, saying the court preferred to listen to “those in black coats.” However, he noted, it had yet to be determined if the ECP had the right to seek a review.
PTI Vice Chairman Shah Mahmood Qureshi then came to the rostrum and accused the government of “arrogance.” Lamenting that the government’s response had not contained the signatures of the entire negotiating team, he claimed the government was not engaging in dialogue with the IMF. “We are aware of the financial difficulties, but the agreement with the IMF is stalled,” he said, adding that the country was also suffering from a political crisis.
The chief justice then asked whether the PTI wanted negotiations or not. “Tehreek-e-Insaf has distanced from negotiations,” he replied.
The hearing then concluded with the CJP saying the court would soon issue an “appropriate order.” He also rejected a plea by Naek for disposal of the petition, saying its “purpose” would not then be achieved.