SC’s Verdict Striking down Amendments to NAB Law Triggered the Most Bizarre ‘Analyses’
By Abbas Nasir
Pakistan

 

The phrase used to be ‘paralysis by analysis’, when someone was guilty of over analyzing a situation or individual. But even then such an exercise was harmless, if boring, with the facts remaining intact.

Today, the analyst equals an artist who needs to shout to be heard and to say, even invent, the most bizarre of things to retain the eyeballs in a very competitive marketplace comprising dozens of TV channel ‘talk shows’ and an even greater number of vlogs on social media.

Both require a large number of eyeballs to survive and greater multitudes to be able to thrive. The more partisan you are and the more controversial your content, the more you prosper, raking in piles of cash that earnest, balanced and fair journalists and analysts cannot aspire to nor dream of.

Sadly, at this altar of ratings/views and subscribers, the truth, objectivity, balance and fairness are slaughtered, because all is well as long as the cash register keeps ringing. This is the sort of journalism that many current media/social media leading lights, with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of followers, practice.

Of course, the most favored target of many of these commentators is the civilian politician, who has rarely wielded real power in the country’s 75-year history, whether elected by a two-thirds majority or at the head of a coalition with wafer-thin numerical superiority.

This bias is reflected in every single comment and analysis. As you move from one analyst to another, the only discernible difference is that their words may reflect favorably on the politician they like, while opprobrium is heaped on all others, as if there was no one else responsible for all that ails us.

So on Friday, when a three-member Supreme Court bench led by the chief justice on his penultimate day in office gave a split verdict  striking down some of the last parliament’s amendments to the NAB law , the decision triggered the most bizarre ‘analyses’.

This included claims that after the verdict some of the most senior political leaders would not be able to contest the forthcoming elections whenever they are held. This was patently incorrect as among the main political leaders very few would be affected as NAB inquiries and investigations don’t lead to disqualification. Also, where in the case of PML-N leaders there are convictions, all legal experts are almost unanimous in saying these would be overturned on appeal as they are weak to start with.

Some ‘anchors’ went so far as to describe the Supreme Court verdict as a masterstroke by the establishment. A masterstroke to ease out several leading politicians of the three main parties to pave the way for a king’s party to govern after the elections. What one such media personality says, the others echo as they all feed off one another. There were conspiracy theories galore.

This went on for the better part of the day, till TV anchor Meher Bukhari was informed by caretaker Prime Minister Anwaar-ul-Haq Kakar on camera that his government would seek a review of the decision to uphold the principle of supremacy of parliament. Only the most ignorant would be unaware of his antecedents.

Also, anyone who has followed judicial ‘politics’ over the past few years, would know well what the  change at the helm of the Supreme Court  would mean. For one, it should spell the end to what many critics have described as ‘bench-fixing’.

This refers to, for example, how mostly a handful of judges with a similar bent of mind were called upon to decide political matters, while equally competent others, with a different mindset, were excluded or squeezed into minority positions, even where they were included on benches.

The minority judgement authored by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah is a case in point. Now Justice Shah and Justice Ijazul Ahsan will be joined by another judge to hear the NAB review since chief justice Umar Ata Bandial has retired.

Monday’s Supreme Court cause list also shows the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedures) Bill, 2023, that was stayed in the most extraordinary circumstances as it was yet to become law. Let’s see whether a full court is formed to hear the case and whether the stay is lifted while it is heard. The bill’s fate will determine not just how benches are formed, i.e., by the chief justice, the master of the roster, or the chief justice and the two senior-most Supreme Court judges. The right to a review, more likened to an appeal, of apex court decisions under suo motu powers may or may not be reinstated.

As you can see, there is no suggestion here as to which way the court will rule but what is clear is that decisions will encompass a wider wisdom and legal opinion with possibly a full court. Hence, it may have greater credibility and acceptability among the people, even if one party or the other has an issue with them.

The last point that needs to be mentioned here is whether on the issue of rewriting the Constitution on the disqualification clause or of ordering the Punjab Assembly elections (not KP polls for some inexplicable reason) after its dissolution within the stipulated time and on the grant of a blanket bail to Imran Khan, the Bandial-led Supreme Court would not have endeared itself to the establishment.

One only looks at the latest inclusion in the caretaker cabinet of Fawad Hasan Fawad, despite ECP objections, and one can tell as we speak that the establishment seems committed to a ‘reset to 2016’. If seats in Punjab fall short of the needed number, there is every indication seats/support will be found in Sindh, Balochistan and KP to make up for the deficit.

Before some of you attack me, let it be clear this isn’t an endorsement of the morality, legality or even desirability of any such exercise, particularly if the ground reality happens to be different. But it is what it is. - Dawn

(The writer is a former editor of Dawn.)