"Leader of the House soon"
-- Rana Aftab Ahmed Khan, President, PPP, Punjab
By Waqar Gillani
The News on Sunday: How do you view the electoral disqualification of the Sharifs?
Rana Aftab Khan: Let me make this very clear that it is not PPP's decision; it is the Supreme Court's verdict. The PPP has nothing to do with it. We are also shocked on the disqualification of the Sharifs. The PPP always wanted reconciliation and, that is why, it allowed Shahbaz Sharif to continue as chief minister despite having an interim relief order from the Lahore High Court in his disqualification case and the court temporarily allowing him to continue as CM.

options
Punjab intended
With battle lines clearly drawn between the PPP and the PML-N, whatever shall the new government in the country's most populous province look like?
By Waqar Gillani
The ouster of Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif from power corridors, a decision allegedly manoeuvred by the PPP top leadership, is being seen as a bad omen for the barely year old democratic set-up, as much as it is quoted as a justification for imposing the Governor's Rule in the province - for two-odd months.

War edict
A narrative of the legal proceedings against Sharifs and the final outcome
By Shahzada Irfan Ahmed
The decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan declaring the Sharif brothers ineligible to contest elections and hold party offices has come as a surprise to many whereas for others it was expected for quite long. Certain quarters believe that the ineligibility cases against both the brothers were being used to pressurize them to enter into a deal with the sitting government.

We've been here before. It was this very Supreme Court, in another age though, that charged the first elected prime minister of the country with murder and had him executed. The very first election after his execution saw his party winning and forming the government as well. People had treated the court verdict with the contempt it deserved.

It appears that the cliché about the lesson of history being that no one learns from it has come down on us again. Once again, two popular leaders of the second largest political party have been declared ineligible to become members of parliament by a verdict of the court whose own credibility is under shadow. It is clear that people will not accept this verdict either.

Besides, times have moved ahead; the pros and cons, the connections, the coincidences are not missed out on by anyone. People understand that the administrative vacuum created in the largest province Punjab is not a necessary corollary of the decision. They know that the governor's rule is not as half-hearted as it is portrayed to be.

The decision is going to have wider, and not necessarily pleasant, political implications. The precarious balance of power between different political forces, the spirit of reconciliation, the unity of political forces has been sacrificed so easily and at such a crucial time when the country needs a bipartisan, unified stand to face the enormous challenges. Even smaller parties like ANP and others realise what is at stake. Will the major parties realise this too and try and attempt some sort of damage control?

Admittedly, PPP is losing its support in Punjab, or at least in the big cities, which matters a lot. But is governor's rule a solution? Was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto backed by governmental power when he launched his party? Did he energise and inspire the cadres on the basis of job offers? Did the Sharifs not overthrow the incumbent PML-Q even when out of power, or out of country rather? PPP needs to look elsewhere for solutions to regain its popularity in Punjab.

The implications that we fear may not essentially favour the Sharif brothers and they need to do some soul-searching, too. Are they only looking for temporary popularity or do they want to play serious and long-term politics for the good of the country? They should have learnt by now that being principled does not mean being rigid nor can politics become the art of the impossible if they so desire.

A little amount of self-criticism is what the political forces on each side need and that, too, rather urgently. This is a day of judgement for more than one institution in this country -- including of course the judiciary -- and this is what this Special Report is about.

Elected governments in Pakistan are rarely ousted by voters (Musharraf and Shujaat's PML-Q being the only such specimen). More often than not this task is undertaken with relish by the military through armed coups. Or by one elected government against another through Governor Rule, the PPP turning this into an art form, having employed this dubious instrument in all instances of the country's history save one. Either way, the pandemonium in Punjab is more than a just court case about the eligibility of the Sharif brothers – the bench was also on trial.

What makes this no ordinary a verdict is that Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif have not just been declared ineligible for membership of legislatures but also that neither can the elder brother become prime minister or chief minister nor the younger brother chief minister again. Both also stand disqualified from being formal leaders of their Pakistan Muslim League-N. This is effectively a knockout of the Sharifs from formal politics since they have lost power, lost membership of legislatures and lost leadership of the country's second largest party.

This raises the issue of whether the courts should have the power to decide who can and who can't become the country's leaders and the leaders of political parties. While justice, they say, is blind – the laws currently in force helped the bench deliver this shocker – surely the judges are not. How can they have ignored that while legal decisions can address a temporary situation, lasting acceptance comes only through legitimacy of trust. The final verdict lies with the people. At least four times has Pakistan's superior judiciary legalized martial law (twice by Musharraf) and at least thrice declared the sacking of elected governments and prime ministers by military backed presidents as valid. At least once the same court ordered an elected prime minister swing on the gallows. See how history views these verdicts now. Have we really produced judges without vision? The people of Pakistan deserve better.

And if the latest 'big' verdict is such a fine example of universal values, why are the sweetmeat shops deserted? It is peculiar that even though many see the PPP being the immediate beneficiary (considering it has a shot now at coming to power for the first time in over 30 years in Punjab), where is the jubilation of the triumphant? The reaction from all quarters in Pakistan to the verdict is either anger or shock even though the court's verdict was Pakistan's worst kept secret for weeks. Not even PPP leaders seem happy. Why this near universal non-satisfaction with 'justice' having being delivered?

PPP ministers and other leaders are avoiding giving responses to the verdict apart from a muted mumble here and there about respecting court verdicts even though the Supreme Court delivered a death sentence on Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, which is now rejected by not just this but many other parties also. It appears that even if the PPP leaders are not sad at the prospects of their biggest political rivals knocked out of electoral politics, they don't seem happy either. If the ruling party is not happy at the disqualification of the Sharifs and had not courted this then the question arises as to who gets to really gain from this development? No less that Khurshid Shah, a senior ruling party leader, says the 'establishment' in particular and 'non-democratic forces' in general, who do not want the supremacy of democratic forces and sovereignty of parliament as these are the only danger to them, will benefit.

The impact of the verdict in this case will extend beyond a legal interpretation that is as controversial as it was expected. Whatever the technical aspects or merits of the verdict, the already controversial Supreme Court has become even more contentious. Its reputation has been dealt a crippling blow even as an institution several judges and thousands of lawyers seek justice for its deposed top judge. How to reconcile the fact that an army chief topples an elected government and he is given legitimacy and not just that; a serving general is allowed by the same court to be eligible for public office and yet a party and its leaders elected by millions of voters are considered ineligible for representation.

Justice, after all they say, not only should be done but also needs to be seen to be done. Perceptions are important. People will always connect the dots. The connection between judges having sworn an oath of allegiance to a military ruler and providing him relief is clear. Judges who refused were sacked. That was clear. Also transparent is the fact that the judges sworn in by Musharraf have not been removed by the current rulers even when they had promised to do so. It is no surprise that not just the aggrieved party (the Sharifs and their PML-N) but also the people in general see a connection between the current judges and the controversial verdict they have handed out and support to them extended by the PPP in their 'legal' defense.

Barely 50 hours before the verdict Prime Minister Yousaf Gilani and Shahbaz Sharif in a meeting had agreed to make joint efforts to make the parliament supreme over all other institutions. Clearly, the Supreme Court verdict is a message for Gilani that his is not the station for such lofty ambitions, which do not suit his party colleagues higher in hierarchy than him.

Sharifs have alleged that Asif Zardari is singularly behind the Dogar Court's verdict. The PPP may pooh-pooh this charge but for a verdict that stretched for eight months and was handed down the day after Zardari returned from China so he could conveniently take the next step to taking control of Punjab makes it hard to ignore PML-N's suspicions.

Had the government wanted, it could have prolonged the case through its attorney general so as to at least see through the long march and the sit-in planned by the lawyers and keep the PML-N away from adding muscle to this popular movement. But considering the closing arguments of Latif Khosa in the case against the Sharifs, few can doubt that a select band of the PPP leadership carefully planned to convert Punjab into a political battleground and to plough its best horses into the course.

But where's the calculation of the fallout of the Sharifs' knockout? Benazir Bhutto's death triggered days of intense and violent protests but because she couldn't be brought back, as her death was irreversible, the protests died down. But the PML-N and its supporters and voters are going to be around, as are the Sharifs, so it is hard to see that the protests will not be prolonged particularly when they join forces with the lawyers and those agitators par excellence – Qazi Hussain Ahmed's Jamaat-e-Islami and Imran Khan's Tehrik-e-Insaf. After all it's best not to take lightly Nawaz Sharif's pregnant threat that Punjab will not take this 'slap on its face' lying down.

PPP's connivance or not, any short-term gains for Zardari's party will be a huge price to pay for the court's pushing of Pakistan into the 1990s' era of political destabilization, which centred on bringing down governments rather than governance. This can only mean that the establishment will reclaim an overwhelming influence once again on the national polity and claw back to the status of the chief arbiter of fates of major political parties. This, in turn, means that not just the PML-N but the PPP will also be the loser in the medium term. In the long term, though, the PPP will be the bigger loser as it assumes the perception of a force akin to the Muslim League faction led by Sharif in the time of General Ziaul Haq – hands in glove with the establishment – while the PML-N assumes the position once enjoyed by PPP, again in the time of Zia. How ironical.

"It's a slur on the people's mandate"

Rana Sanaullah: It's disgraceful. It is a slur on the mandate of the people given to us on February 18, 2008. We know that it's actually the President's edict. The decision was not surprising for us, as we always knew the present judges would not spare the Sharifs because of their commitment to the restoration of judiciary. We must not forget that this is the same court that provided relief to dictator Musharraf to contest for the office of the president in uniform. The leaders of PPP should brace themselves for the wrath of the people of Pakistan. By imposing judicial and presidential martial law (Governor Rule) in Punjab, he has clearly laid his true intentions bare. He has proved that his rule is an extension of Musharraf's and that he has no respect for the mandate of the people. But, I want to tell him that we will not allow him to make this country a 'Zardariland'.

TNS: It is being said that the PML-N's reaction with regard to the present judges would be completely different if the verdict had been given in their favour. Comment.

RS: We have never accepted the judges who took oath under the PCO. We believe all their decisions post-Nov 3 are unconstitutional. The verdict has come today but we have been criticizing these judges from day one. We know the decision has come after the PML-N rejected all offers of a deal with Asif Zardari on the reinstatement of the sacked chief justice of Pakistan. Zardari cannot afford an independent judiciary because he fears it can result in the abolition of the National Reconciliation Ordinance. The PML-N has kept its promise and maintained a principled stance on the issue, which is why Mian Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif have been victimized.

TNS: If you do not accept the present courts why did your leadership appoint lawyers to defend the ineligibility cases in the same courts?

RS: We've never appointed a lawyer or gone to the Dogar court. In fact, the lawyers were appointed by the federal government and the proponents of Mian Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif.

TNS: What is PML-N's next strategy going to be?

RS: We will put up resistance on all fronts against Zardari's 'martial law'. We believe the case is now before the court of the 160 million people of Pakistan and they will decide for or against us. In fact, they have already shown what they want, through their demos in different cities of the country. We are in contact with all political parties and leaders involved in the lawyers' movement on the issue. Besides, we have launched a mass movement from Feb 26. We have already announced that we will be participating in the Long March and the sit-in. Now we will show Zardari our real strength. This movement will soon become a 'Save Pakistan Movement' and it will not end until mid-term elections are announced.

TNS: It means you are not going to shake hands with the PML-Q to form a fresh government in Punjab?

RS: We will form a government in Punjab but not with the help of the PML-Q. We will do so with the help of the people of Pakistan.

-- A Sahi

The News on Sunday: How do you view the electoral disqualification of the Sharifs?

Rana Aftab Khan: Let me make this very clear that it is not PPP's decision; it is the Supreme Court's verdict. The PPP has nothing to do with it. We are also shocked on the disqualification of the Sharifs. The PPP always wanted reconciliation and, that is why, it allowed Shahbaz Sharif to continue as chief minister despite having an interim relief order from the Lahore High Court in his disqualification case and the court temporarily allowing him to continue as CM.

TNS: What future do you see for Punjab now?

RAK: Well, the PPP believes in democracy and wants a democratic set-up. We want to run the Punjab set through assemblies and it is certain that the PPP will soon call the assembly session and invite all parties to exercise their right to elect the leader of the House.

TNS: How will you react to the PML-N's accusations that the PPP influenced the court's verdict?

RAK: There is no truth in it whatsoever. PPP has always believed in democracy and a free and fair judiciary. We are not the people who would influence judiciary sitting in the lap of a dictator.

TNS: What went wrong with the PPP-PML-N coalition in Punjab?

RAK: As per the directions of the party Co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari we opted for reconciliation and agreed on a PML-N government in the province with 40 percent share in the power. This was done with mutual understanding. But this was not respected. I'd like to mention here that the PPP was given dull ministries while all the important portfolios were allotted to the PML-N favourites. Moreover, there was no proper and important legislation in the House and no regular meetings of the provincial cabinet. The PML-N should have promoted tolerance and given PPP a sense of being a part of the government.

TNS: What about the future government in Punjab?

RAK: See, you have three major parties - PPP, PML-N and PML-Q. If the PML-N changes its attitude, we are open to the idea of joining hands with the party all over again.

On the other hand, we are also considering other options, such as opening a dialogue with the PML-Q. Let's see what happens.

TNS: How will you ensure that the next coalition will be a better experience?

RAK: Anything is possible in politics. We tried to run the coalition with the PML-N in a peaceful and successful manner but it didn't work. This time all modalities will be set before any agreement. Tolerance and proper power sharing, mutual understanding and consultation are critically required.

TNS: Do you think the Governor's Rule can go on in Punjab?

RAK: The Governor's Rule has been imposed in a situation where there is no CM and there is a constitutional crisis in the province. It is temporary. The PPP believes in having a democratic set-up and ensuring a fair election of the leader of the House soon.

The ouster of Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif from power corridors, a decision allegedly manoeuvred by the PPP top leadership, is being seen as a bad omen for the barely year old democratic set-up, as much as it is quoted as a justification for imposing the Governor's Rule in the province - for two-odd months.

The PPP, with its coalition governments in Islamabad and the four provinces, happily joined hands with the PML-N after the Feb-18 general elections last year. Both the parties announced a happy coalition partnership in the Centre as well as the province of Punjab. Asif Ali Zardari (who was not the Head of the State at that time) personally invited the PML-N to form its government that would have PPP share 40 percent in power. Meanwhile, the PML-N also managed to win over 25 independent MPAs besides seeking the support of Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) and the PML-Functional - both having two seats each.

The situation seemed normal till the PML-N threatened to break away from the alliance in the Centre provided the deposed judges were not restored. Eventually, in May 2008, as many as 9 of the party's federal ministers quit the cabinet. The hawks on either side had already termed the alliance as "unnatural", especially after Asif Zardari's procrastination on the issue of the restoration of judiciary to its Nov-2 position for which the PPP Co-chairman had twice made a written agreement with the PML-N.

Interestingly, after the PML-N's decision to sit on opposition benches in the National Assembly, the PPP-PML-N coalition continued on in Punjab. This time, with a twist. Governor Salman Taseer was now out to campaign against the PML-N government saying that the PPP had not been given its due share. All the provincial ministers of the PPP followed suit, barring the party's parliamentary leader and senior minister Punjab, Raja Riaz who had a clear tilt towards the elements believing in the continuity of the coalition.

In the meantime, the governor started writing letters to the CM on several governance issues such as the local government audit issue, and termed the measures taken by Shahbaz Sharif as against the law.

The PML-N, on the other hand, took up the issue with Islamabad and demanded to change the Punjab governor, a demand turned down by President Zardari.

Soon after, the hawks in the PPP started raising their voice for a 'change of guard' in Punjab. They demanded of the federal government to follow the practice whereby the PPP had toppled the Azad Jammu and Kashmir government a few months back with the help of a forward bloc, bringing in their own Prime Minister. The buzzword, this time, was 'disqualification'.

Today, it seems that the Supreme Court's verdict against the Sharifs - also because of Sharifs' statements against judiciary and the PCO judges- was a foregone conclusion and that Governor Punjab Salman Taseer had got his 'homework' done for a possible takeover. Compare his hinting at the 'change of guard' in the province, at a reception, a few days ago.

On the fateful day of Feb 25, soon after the short judgment of the SC bench, Shahbaz Sharif left the CM House. The same night, Islamabad imposed the Governor's Rule for two months.

"We tried our best to work along with the PML-N and we are still ready to cooperate for the formation of government on well-intentioned terms," said Rana Aftab Ahmed Khan, President PPP Punjab, talking exclusively to TNS.

"It is not the PPP but the courts that disqualified the Sharifs...," he explained.

According to Sardar Zulfikar Ahmed Khan Khosa, a senior member of the dissolved Punjab cabinet, Salman Taseer was not liked (by the Punjab government) because he played dirty.

Khosa alleged that President Asif Zardari was "behind this decision" and wanted to take over Punjab forcibly.

However, he said that the PML-N would not allow any party to usurp its mandate.

As for other political circles, a peaceful transition of a democratic set-up means one of four possible things: 1)a PML-N-PML-Q alliance; 2)a PPP-PML-Q alliance; 3)a PPP-PML-N coalition, again; and, 4)the extension of the Governor's Rule, something which Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has also hinted at. There is another possibility - a remote one, though - that the assembly would be dissolved and fresh elections would be held in Punjab.

Political pundits generally believe there is very little chance of a PML-N-PPP alliance now when the battle lines are well drawn. The PPP and the PML-Q together is a more viable option, but it will require of the latter to extend its full support, what with its forward bloc. If reports are to believe, both the parties have already got in contact, with Taseer at the very helm of affairs.

The PML-N-PML-Q alliance, verily possible if the Chaudhrys respect what their party's majority has to say about it. The PML-N will have to show its willingness to give them a lion's share in the Punjab.

The continuity of the Governor's Rule is, perhaps, the most dreaded and least desired of the options.

Fresh polls in Punjab are not likely to benefit the PPP, since the PML-N is all set to make a clean sweep in the province, riding the current sympathy wave.

The PML-N leadership alleges that the Governor's Rule is aimed to gain time till a deal is hatched with the PML-Q. The PML-N, with the strength of 169, also needs the support of a handful of other Punjab Assembly members to acquire a simple majority (186) in the House.

The PPP, which is rather weak in Punjab, is out to grab the power in the province by striking a deal with the PML-Q.

It should be interesting to see whichever parties will join hands and whether the transition will be a peaceful one.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan declaring the Sharif brothers ineligible to contest elections and hold party offices has come as a surprise to many whereas for others it was expected for quite long. Certain quarters believe that the ineligibility cases against both the brothers were being used to pressurize them to enter into a deal with the sitting government.

This is something that Nawaz Sharif has also claimed after the passing of the said verdict. In his words, they (the Sharif brothers) were offered a deal twice, preliminarily by Justice Hamid Dogar and, later on, by President Asif Ali Zardari. But the deal was not accepted. Nawaz also said that they had refused to make a deal with the PCO judges who did try to verify Musharraf's illegal rule and gave several unpopular verdicts.

All allegations leveled by the Sharif brothers notwithstanding one thing is quite clear: The way they publicly flayed the court decisions and refused to accept the PCO judges legitimate also affected the case adversely. They outrightly refused to appear in the court and condemned the judges hearing the case repeatedly, many a time in front of huge gatherings.

Raza Kasuri, counsel for Noor Elahi, the rival candidate of Mian Nawaz Sharif from NA-123, had even submitted DVDs comprising Shahbaz Sharif's speeches against the sitting judges in the court and contended that he could be disqualified for ridiculing the judiciary.

Though the Sharif brothers had disassociated from the court the proposer-Mehr Zafar Iqbal-and seconder-Shakeel Beg-of Mian Nawaz Sharif's name for the elections had filed petitions in the court against his disqualification. The court dismissed their petition and told them to deposit Rs 100,000 each as the cost within 15 days or go to prison for three months.

The PPP government in the Centre has strongly denied its involvement in the case and declared it an independent decision of the Supreme Court. However, the PML-N alleges that the timing of the decision makes it quite controversial and hints at the fact that the party has been punished for announcing its support to the lawyers during their intended sit-in.

Since Feb 2008 elections Nawaz has for the first time unleashed unbridled criticism against President Zardari and termed him a corrupt person who, allegedly, had engineered the SC verdict against him. On the other hand, the PPP leaders have refuted such involvement saying Nawaz had been disqualified while Musharraf was in power; the SC had simply withheld it and rejected petitions filed against it.

The status of Nawaz case is quite clear. A full bench of the LHC had disqualified Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz chief Nawaz Sharif from contesting a by-election on June 23, 2008, citing his conviction for conspiring to hijack the plane bringing the then army chief Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf to Pakistan. Technically, he had been allowed to leave for abroad without his conviction being set aside. Nawaz had, on the other hand, pleaded innocence and sought trial of Gen (r) Musharraf for abrogating the Constitution and sending a democratically elected government home. The verdict, in the words of the PML-N sources, had declared Nawaz a culprit and exonerated Gen (r) Musharraf.

Such disqualification is also covered by Section 8 D of The Conduct Of General Elections Order, 2002 (Chief Executive's Order No.7 of 2002). Sub-section h of this section disqualifies a person from election who "has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction on a charge of corrupt practice, moral turpitude or misuse of power or authority under any law for the time being in force."

As far as the case of Shahbaz is concerned, the court had conditionally allowed him to hold the chief minister's office until an election tribunal decided his case.

A possible course of action for Sharifs can be the filing of review petition but the comments coming from their side suggest that they will continue defying the courts. For example, Nawaz has said that it is not difficult to perceive that the decision had come from court or from Asif Ali Zardari.

He goes on to say, "We accepted ineligibility but we did not bargain over the interests of Pakistan. We and Benazir Bhutto remained in exile and signed the Charter of Democracy. …The incumbent government has done worse with us than President Musharraf. The NRO now dominates national decisions. The nation will hold Musharraf accountable and will ask him under what law he pardoned those who had looted national exchequer and Swiss cases were withdrawn. The real judges are not restored due to the NRO as Zardari fears if the real judges are restored, they will ask him to return to nation the public money he had plundered."

The Attorney General of Pakistan, Latif Khan Khosa, had also rejected the Sharifs' demand to constitute a larger bench comprising deposed judges also to hear the cases against them and the voluntary withdrawal of some judges from the bench. His point was that it was the prerogative of the chief justice to constitute a larger bench to hear a case, and that it was the sole discretion of a judge to withdraw himself from a bench and no one could direct him to pull out.

Regarding the Shahbaz case, the opposition counsel had submitted that he was a "defaulter" and that he had ridiculed the judiciary. The counsel had contended that Mian Shahbaz Sharif was ineligible (to contest elections) under Article 62 of the Constitution and that the electoral rules were aimed at holding back dishonest persons from electing to parliament.

The text of the undertaking made by the Sharif brothers while making an agreement with the Musharraf government for leaving for Saudi Arabia for 10 years and not taking part in any political activity in the country during this period was also read out aloud in the court. It was also said that he was not eligible for contesting the elections for any public office after breaching the agreement he had made with the government regarding his exile.

Shahbaz had clarified at a press conference in December 2007 that he had not defaulted on even a single penny of any bank. This statement was in answer to the arguments of the counsel for Shahbaz Sharif's opponent candidates in the court. The counsel had argued Shahbaz could not contest the election as he stood disqualified under Article 63 of the Constitution read with section 99 of the Representation of People Act 1976 and Article 8(d) of the Conduct of General Election Order, 2002, on the ground that he was a defaulter of a consortium of the National Bank of Pakistan, Habib Bank, United Bank, Agricultural Development Bank, Muslim Commercial Bank, PICIC Bank, Bank of Punjab, and the First Punjab Modarba for which the cases were pending before the LHC.

During the press conference, Shahbaz had said that the objection of the bank liability was also raised against him during the previous elections and his nomination papers had been rejected on the same flimsy grounds. Shahbaz had moved the single LHC bench, which had decided against him but when he challenged the decision of the single LHC bench before the full LHC bench, the decision had come in his favour. At that time he had claimed that he had the attested copies of that judgment with him.

But this time round he did not appear before the court and the decision came against him. The court was not convinced that he had never held or controlled the majority interest in the companies owned by Ittefaq Group.

Earlier, Shahbaz Sharif was also wanted in Sabzazar police encounter case but he had entered into a compromise with the heirs of the boys killed in the shootout.

To say that the PML-N does not accept the superior judiciary as it currently exists as legitimate would be an understatement. For about two years now, its entire politics has revolved around the issue of independence of judiciary and since Nov 3, 2007, restoration of the deposed judges has been its only slogan, beginning of course with the restoration of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry as the legitimate chief justice of Pakistan.

The Sharif brothers refused to acknowledge the existence of the current judiciary, made no attempts to defend the case of ineligibility lodged against them, did not personally appear before the court and instead of pleading their case on legal grounds only tried to malign the court. Some might say that with this background, the decision of Supreme Court declaring them both ineligible to contest the general election was very much expected.

It is not our purpose to go into the merits of the judgement itself, a detailed version of which is still awaited. But it might prove to a worthwhile exercise to go back into the recent history to see what exactly has been PML-N's relationship with the judiciary in general. Of course, apart from the recent state of disaffection, the only time one can recall a similar souring of relationship was when Justice Sajjad Ali Shah was the chief justice of Pakistan. Otherwise, during Mian Nawaz Sharif's two terms as prime minister of Pakistan, the relations with the judiciary has been an easy ride mostly. Some have argued it was because the predominantly conservative judicary and PML-N had a shared world-view. But that is beyond the prview of the curent discussion.

In early 1993, relations between Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and president Ghulam Ishaq Khan deteriorated to the extent that Khan planned to oust Sharif. According to Dr Hamid Hussain's article 'Judicial Jitters in Pakistan – A Historical Overview' published in Defence Journal, June 2007, some statements of then chief justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah, indicated that judiciary may act to counter the president's move. President waited till April 18, 1993, the day of Zullah's retirement and appointed Justice Nasim Hasan Shah as the new CJP. He sent Sharif and his assembly packing the same day. Unluckily, for Ghulam Ishaq, not only did the new chief justice have a favorable tilt towards Muslim League, his opposition towards PPP was well-known -- he was one of the judges who had supported the death sentence of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1979.

Nasim Hasan Shah headed the bench that was to hear the petition regarding removal of Sharif government in 1993. Dr Hamid Hussain states that Shah at the start of the hearing of the case stated that he would not be another Munir (referring to chief justice Muhammad Munir's decision of validating Ayub Khan's coup in 1958) and that "the nation will hear a good news."

Predictably the court headed by Nasim Hasan Shah suspended the orders of the president and restored the Nawz Sharif's government. Justice Sajjad Shah gave the lone dissenting opinion in which he wrote that "seemingly it so appears that two Prime Ministers from Sindh were sacrificed at the altar of Article 58 (2) (b) of the Constitution but when the turn of the Prime Minister from Punjab came, the tables were turned. The ethnic factor was now quite visible even in the highest court of the land." Two judges, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqi, asked the chief justice to take disciplinary action against Sajjad Ali Shah for the language he had used in his dissenting note.

In 1997 a conflict arose between the CJP Sajjad Ali Shah and then prime minister Mian Nawaz Sharif. The cabinet members and MNAs passed derogatory remarks about judges and even stormed the Supreme Court building on Nov 28, 2007. The government reportedly started to harass the chief justice and his family. Several incidents such as snatching of one of the cars used by chief justice at gun point and arrest of an armed intruder from his residence (police claimed that the man was mentally disturbed) raised suspicions of harassment. His son-in-law and other relatives were sacked from their jobs and police reportedly harassed them.

During Nawaz Sharif's first term as prime minister, special courts were set up to prosecute certain crimes. A Supreme Appellate Court was set up to streamline the appeal process and a Supreme Court judge was assigned to this court. When justice Sajjad Ali Shah (a Supreme Court judge then) sitting on this court acquitted one accused, Sharif was furious. He is believed to have persuaded the chief justice to remove Sajjad Ali Shah and appoint Justice Muhammad Rafiq Tarar.

The role played by Justice Rafiq Tarar in exploiting the division among superior court justices to achieve the desired results is history. According to Dr Hamid Hussain's article, a day before the order of two Supreme Court justices sitting in Quetta questioning the appointment of chief justice, Tarar reportedly flew to Quetta in a special plane accompanied by Shahbaz Sharif and met with these judges. He writes that after an intense activity of palace intrigues, rebellious judges of the Supreme Court entertained a case against appointment of Sajjad Shah in Peshawar High Court which was pending for over two years. On December 2, 2007 two parallel courts were set up inside the Supreme Court, he goes on to state. "The chief justice had hedged his bets and had two benches set up: one was a five member bench headed by him to hear contempt case against the prime minister and another three member bench headed also by him to hear the constitutionality of 13th Amendment (this amendment had removed president's discretionary power to dismiss prime minister and assembly). In the other room Justice Saeeduzaman Siddiqui presided over the assembly of ten other judges to decide chief justice's fate and they de-notifioed the appointment of Sajjad Shah as chief justice of Supreme Court."

The government immediately denotified the appointment of chief justice Sajjad Shah and he was relegated to the status of an ordinary judge. Justice Ajmal Mian was sworn in as the new acting chief justice.

A new chapter in judicial history was written in Pakistan which probably no other country can match. A group of ten Supreme Court judges deposed their own chief justice and then nominated an acting chief justice from among themselves. They excluded five brother judges who were viewed as sympathetic to Sajjad Ali Shah. The decision had some serious legal ramifications such as: what would be the status of the decisions taken by Sajjad Ali Shah as chief justice. "The court bailed itself out by ruling that all decisions made by Sajjad Shah as chief justice would be valid using the doctrine of de facto."

Rafiq Tarar after his retirement as a judge of Supreme Court also served Sharif's business interests and was later elected senator on PML-N ticket. He was duly rewarded by appointing him president for his loyal services during the Sajjad Ali Shah issue.

According to Justice Ajmal Mian book "A Judge Speaks out" in 1997, when rebellious judges confronted chief justice Sajjad Shah in a meeting, there was plenty of name calling. Shah accused Justice Shaikh Riaz for working on behest of the government as he was friendly with Shahbaz Sharif. Riaz retorted that when he was serving as chief justice of Lahore high court, Shah had asked him to arrange for a meeting with Nawaz Sharif's father Mian Muhammad Sharif (he used the words 'qadam bosi' (kissing the feet) of Sharif's father) and Riaz had arranged for that meeting.

Sindh High court justice Ghaus Ali Shah joined PML-N and served as Sharif's confidant for long time. Supreme Court justice Afzal Lone was on the bench which restored Nawaz Sharif government in 1993. Later he headed the Lone Commission which absolved Nawaz Sharif of any wrongdoing in the cooperative scandal. Later, Sharif paid Lone back by nominating him to become senator.

A special accountability court headed by Justice Malik Abdul Qayyum sentenced Benazir Bhutto and her husband on corruption charges during Nawaz Sharif's government. In April 2001, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment during the appeal when 32 tapes of secret conversations between justice Qayyum and then head of Accountability Cell and Nawaz Sharif's aide Senator Saif ur Rahman were played that confirmed that Sharif government had pressurised justice Qayyum to convict Benazir and her husband.

Justice Rashid Aziz, CJ Lahore High Court during the second term of Nawaz Sharif, is believed to maintain close ties with Shahbaz Sharif, then CM of Punjab and both used to see each other regularly privately.

Mian Nawaz Sharif after the decision has once again declared that they do not consider the present judges as legitimate and will go to court of people to get the decision in their favour. He has already announced to take part in the long march and sit-in announced by the lawyers' movement for restoration of independent judiciary with full force.