Supreme Court writes to British Envoy explaining Jan 13 order

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan has written a letter to British High Commissioner Jane Marriot and explained its January 13 verdict, setting aside the Peshawar High Court (PHC) order that reinstated “bat” as the PTI’s electoral symbol for the general elections 2024, ARY News reported on Wednesday.

On the directive of Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the Registrar of the Supreme Court wrote to the British High Commission, noting that High Commissioner Marriott emphasised the importance of democracy, elections, and open societies at recently held Asma Jahangir Conference.

“Not all parties were formally permitted to contest the elections and that legal processes were used to prevent some political leaders from participation, and to prevent the use of recognisable party symbols,” British Envoy had said.

The apex court, in its letter, noted that the British High Commissioner’s criticism of stripping a certain political party of its electoral symbol “was unjustified” as the latter did not follow the law, abiding political parties to hold intra-party elections.

The court noted that elections were required to be held within 90 days of the completion of the tenure of the National and provincial assemblies but “had not taken place because the President and the Election Commission of Pakistan were at odds regarding who is empowered to announce the election date”.

“The matter was resolved in just 12 days by the Supreme Court, and general elections were held throughout Pakistan on 8 February 2024”, it noted.

Previously, the letter mentioned, many wanting to contest elections in Pakistan faced a lifetime ban because they were not considered honest and trustworthy (‘sadiq and ‘ameen’) by the Supreme Court.

“However, a larger 7- Member Bench overruled the earlier decision, holding that it did not conform to the Constitution and the law”, it added.

The Supreme Court said that the law enacted by Parliament (Elections Act, 2017) requires democracy within political parties via the holding of periodical intra-party elections; to forestall autocracy or even dictatorship within them.

To ensure compliance with this democratic principle the law stipulates, it said, that if a political party does not hold intra-party elections, then it would not be eligible for an election symbol.

“A political party (which had itself voted in this law) did not hold the mandated intra-party elections. The Supreme Court reiterated what the law stipulated,” the letter said.

Therefore, the registrar said: “…your Excellency’s criticism with regard to this decision, with utmost respect, was unjustified”.

Pointing out a recent SC ruling, the letter stated: “It was gratifying that your Excellency had repeatedly stressed the importance of open societies’ which you stated are necessary for vibrant democracies. You will be pleased to learn that the Supreme Court has recognised the right to information and vigorously applied it to itself”.

“Persisting in the violent undemocratic mistakes of the past condemns present and future generations, and perpetuates cycles of violence. Let us embrace truth, which sets us free,” it maintained.

Raising some questions, it stated: “Should the overthrow of the elected democratic government of Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, to capture Iranian oil, not be revealed after over seven decades of cover-up? Will this not prove therapeutic for the perpetrator and the victim? Will it not engender trust, possibly friendship, and peace?”

“Ceding to what it described as Jewish Zionist aspirations’, the British government wrote to an individual, its own citizen, on 2 November 1917 conveying its decision to establish a settler-colonial state. This decision was not voted upon by the people of the area who were impacted by it, nor even by your own. The British government, and not Parliament, unilaterally decided it. The Balfour Declaration became the foundation on which an ethnic state was established. Those who had always lived there were excluded from this ethnic state; contained in ghettos, humiliated, deprived, brutalised, maimed and killed,” the letter added.

The Supreme Court asked the British High Commissioner: “Let us be honest and acknowledge past mistakes in the spirit of openness, advocated by your Excellency. And, jettison the unholy concept of ethnic superiority, and its concomitant humanity — an inferior humanity.”

The court said it has acknowledged the mistakes made in its past, addressed them in detail, and taken steps to ensure that they are not repeated.

“Since the Government of His Majesty King Charles III has stressed the need for open societies and democracy, and offered criticism on the decisions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, reciprocity would presumably be acceptable,” it concluded.