ISLAMABAD: Denouncing the suggestion that the party had misrepresented the support of the army to its cause, a counsel for the Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday that anyone making such assertions was committing “a political sin”.
In a rejoinder submitted in court by PAT’s senior counsel Ali Zafar – in reply to three questions submitted by Raza Rabbani on behalf of the Balochistan National Party-Awami (BNP-A) and the Awami National Party (ANP) -- the party demanded the withdrawal of what it called a “wanton assertion attributed to PAT or its leaders” by the two parties.
The PAT reply came a day after the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) tried to wriggle out of its burden by not answering the tricky questions, which accused the two protesting parties of invoking the armed forces’ support.
Both parties were asked by the Supreme Court to submit replies on the apprehensions of the ANP and BNP-A, who feared unconstitutional steps against the backdrop of the continuing sit-ins on Constitution Avenue.
Party’s counsel maintains misrepresenting military’s support a ‘political sin’
The questions presented by Mr Rabbani were, firstly, “Whether any political party or any other group could at all seek constitutional office-bearers to disengage from office under threat of violence or use of force in violation of the constitution”. Secondly, “Whether any political leader can legitimately involve the Pakistan Army in his design to achieve his unconstitutional objectives by attempting to reassure his followers that army by a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will determine the future course of his action”. And thirdly, “Whether political leaders can misrepresent the support of Pakistan Army to their cause in public or private communication, thereby compromising the image of a national institution”.
In its reply, the PAT maintained that its demands were constitutional and asked the Supreme Court to dispose of the petitions filed by various high court bar associations and presented a set of nine questions, almost similar to those often posed by Dr Tahirul Qadri to the government in his speeches.
The Awami Tehreek stated that it had the greatest respect for the armed forces as soldiers always risked everything to save the people and protect the state from disasters.
The alleged attempt by the ANP and BNP-A, the PAT maintained, should be “nipped in the bud” as both parties were trying to get the army’s name involved in political debate at a time when it was defending the country through Operation Zarb-i-Azb and helping millions cope with the floods.
While insisting that the army’s name be kept out of the sensitive matter, the counsel for the protesting party argued that it was the right of every individual to demand the resignation of any public office-bearer, be it the prime minister, a chief minister or any other minister.
The party’s lawyer also said that it was not threatening violence or use of force, saying that it made it clear time and again that the sit-in would remain peaceful.
Explaining why Dr Qadri met army chief Gen Raheel Sharif, the reply stated that the party had welcomed the government’s suggestion that the army chief facilitate a solution. The PAT welcomed the move because their intention was to solve the problem, but subsequent debate between ministers about the nature of this ‘facilitation’ spoiled this possibility, it contended.
