Pakistan Supreme Court rejects prime minister's appeal. What's the next step?

Pakistan Prime Minister Gilani's appeal of his contempt charges was thrown out today, paving the way for indictment. Some say the ruling benefits the powerful military.

Anjum Naveed/AP
A Pakistan paramilitary soldier and women police officers stand guard at the Supreme Court in Islamabad, Pakistan, last week. The Supreme Court proceeds contempt of court against Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani for failing to carry out its order to reopen a corruption case against President Asif Ali Zardari.
B.K.Bangash/AP/File
Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani waves upon his arrival at the Supreme Court in Islamabad, Pakistan, in January.

Pakistan’s Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by its prime minister against contempt charges, paving the way for him to face indictment on Monday.

The ruling ensures a prolonged standoff between the civilian government and the judiciary, which observers say ultimately benefits the country’s powerful military and weakens democracy.

"The appeal is dismissed," Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry said in court on Friday, reading the decision of the eight-member bench.

Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani had been charged with refusing to obey the court's request to write a letter to Swiss authorities to revive a 1997 money-laundering case against President Asif Ali Zardari.

Mr. Zardari and his late wife, Benazir Bhutto, were ordered by a Swiss magistrate in 2003 to return $12 million in kickbacks to Pakistan. That ruling was later overturned after the government of Pakistan withdrew its case in 2008 as part of a political amnesty.

The prime minister’s legal team argues that as president, Zardari enjoys immunity, whereas the Supreme Court judges have stated that, immunity or not, Gilani must follow the court’s decision.

If convicted, Mr. Gilani faces six months in jail and a bar on holding public office. But if he is dismissed, Zardari's government can elect another prime minister, who could in theory also refuse to obey the court’s order, resulting in a constitutional limbo.

Last week, Pakistani political analyst Hasan Askari Rizwi told the Monitor the contempt case shows that the Supreme Court is overstepping its bounds.

“The Supreme Court has the power to go forward with contempt of court charges,” he said, “but I think it is overstretching its domain, and this will cause greater uncertainty and confusion in our already troubled politics.”

Gilani’s lawyer, Aitzaz Ahsan, was a key figure in Pakistan’s lawyers’ movement that helped overthrow dictator Pervez Musharraf and restore judges who were previously fired.  His emotive appeals to the court to consider the prime minister’s role in restoring those judges to office were dismissed by Chief Justice Chaudhry, who said that the appeal against the court’s decision could itself be seen as a fresh contempt.

Also on Friday, a judicial commission assigned to investigate whether the government sent a secret memo to the United States calling for help in reining back the military and preventing a coup ruled that a private US citizen at the center of the scandal may testify via video-link from London.

Because the US citizen, Mansoor Ijaz, has refused to come to Pakistan, citing security concerns, analysts believed the case against the government would collapse. However, it appears now that it will continue.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.