What next?

JUSTICE should not only be done but it should be seen to have been done. On the face it, it was the absence of the second part of this adage from the judgement of the Supreme Court on petitions against President Musharraf’s eligibility for reelection that provoked prompt rejection of the verdict by the political opposition and mainstream lawyers community. To its detractors, the verdict lacked the veneer of justice and fair play that makes adjudication so much acceptable. By a majority of six to three the court threw out the petitions on the basis of a technicality that these were not maintainable under Article 184 (3) under which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to provide relief in cases that are of public interest or relate to Fundamental Rights. Surprisingly, it took the court a good two weeks of intense hearings, participated by the country’s top legal brains, to conclude that the petitions were beyond the scope of its jurisdiction. A bitter Hamid Khan, a former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, was to say: “They have abrogated their duty to decide on the future of the nation. Jurisdiction of such matters is their duty but they are deciding on technicalities”. But having said that, one would not condone the ugly manner in which some of the lawyers reacted to the verdict of the Supreme Court. How do they explain the contradiction in their behaviour, in that they danced in the streets at the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry but when the very same judges rejected the anti-Musharraf petitions they shouted ‘shame, shame’. The remarks they aired against the judges were too unsavory to be uttered by these defenders of law and human dignity. With Socratic resignation, they should have said ‘we don’t agree with the verdict but we accept it’, as did one of their clients, Imran Khan. An earlier incident, where a lawyer sprayed a presidential counsel with black paint, should have served them as caution to guard against being overwhelmed by emotions. Because of their struggle the judicial activism that culminated in the reinstatement of the chief justice had come like a whiff of fresh air. A string of soul-stirring judgements by the Supreme Court had greatly helped restore the confidence of the people in the goodness of things that can happen in Pakistan. It is hoped the lawyers’ leaders will see to it that the country’s apex court is not made controversial, because in these difficult times only higher judiciary can act as an arbiter between the ‘no holds barred’ political opponents.
The Supreme Court verdict, as expected, has buoyed the spirits in the presidential camp. There, it is being interpreted as validation of its scheme of things to get President Musharraf re-elected for the second term, and in uniform. It is indeed a significant victory for the President, but this is just the beginning. The opposition, assisted by lawyers, has said that it was only a skirmish in the war that has just begun. For one thing, the verdict of the nine-member bench is being challenged by the petitioners for review which would be done by the full court. Also, a presidential candidate, Justice Wajihuddin (Retd), has challenged the candidature of Pervez Musharraf before the Chief Election Commissioner, which is expected to also end up before the Supreme Court. Then, the All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) is rearing to resign from the assemblies, precipitating yet one more legal battle. With only a week left before the presidential election, can the Supreme Court cope with such a welter of contentious cases? Will things normalise if the government succeeds in securing another term for President Musharraf on October 6, and he takes off his uniform before taking oath of office before November 16? The opposition, which is neither insignificant nor likely to fade out, has promised him a tough time till he is removed. In fact, his election will drag the fight in the courts and not just spill over onto the streets. Inevitably, in chaos and uncertainty thus abounding, the precedent of an army chief becoming a presidential candidate and getting elected president of the country, the spirit of Bonapartism is bound to flourish.

Collective punishment

ISRAEL’S rejection of family unification files pertaining to residents of Gaza is one more example of the collective punishment meted out by the occupying power to the Palestinians. The Israeli step comes after Tel Aviv declared the Gaza Strip a “hostile entity.” Israeli officials justify their decision on the grounds that, since Israel disengaged from Gaza two years ago, it could no longer be considered an occupying power, responsible under international law for the welfare of the people under its occupation. Gaza can, however, be considered “hostile” on the grounds of continued missile bombardment of Israel since that time. Yet international law continues to treat the Gaza Strip, like the West Bank, as occupied territory, and thus places responsibility on the occupying power for all the basic humanitarian needs of Palestinians in both areas. In addition, collective punishment is forbidden under international law. The Israeli government’s decision to consider Gaza a hostile entity does not release Israel from its obligations as an occupying power. Despite its 2005 pullout, Israel retains the keys to all ports of entry as well as the right to mount military forays deep into Gaza. Since the beginning of this year alone, such operations have resulted in the deaths of 251 Palestinians. Israel will probably cut off electricity to Gaza, with the exception of a supply to hospitals; sharply reduce fuel supplies, again to a level sufficient only to power vital services; block the flow of monetary payments to unspecified recipients; keep entries into Gaza shut, apart from allowing food supplies in twice a week; and restrict visits to Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons. It probably will not cut off or even reduce water supplies in view of the violent reactions such a measure would produce.
If the Israeli strategy since the Hamas takeover has essentially been to put the squeeze on Gaza, it has become apparent that it is not achieving Tel Aviv’s desire to topple Hamas. But perhaps this is exactly what Israel wants; to solidify the wedge between the West Bank and Gaza and to keep Hamas isolated within its Gaza confines. On the other hand, the imposition of collective punishment, rather than targeting Hamas, will only recruit more Palestinians to take part in the struggle against Israeli injustice. Undoubtedly, Israeli decision-makers are currently computing the existing political situation and the likely political fallout from each of the possible scenarios. Much will depend on how Hamas comports itself between now and the forthcoming summit meeting in Washington. For example, will it risk sabotaging the meeting in advance by triggering a confrontation in Gaza, or will it back down in the face of Israel’s tightening stranglehold? And of course, we should not rule out the possibility of Israel itself making the first move to forestall the autumn meeting by pushing the situation in Gaza to its breaking point.

—Arab News