Attempt To Ban Imran, Storm In A Tea Cup?

'Under the circumstances, this announcement may remain limited to bravado and little else, adding momentum to Imran's narrative of victimhood,' points out Rana Banerji, who headed the Pakistan desk at RA&W.

Soon after the Pakistan supreme court's July 12 judgment allowing reserved seats in the national and provincial assemblies to Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, a rattled Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) government's Information Minister Ataullah Tarar disclosed that a reference will be sent to the top court seeking a ban on the PTI, and cases would also be initiated under Article 6 (high treason) of the 1973 constitution, to start proceedings against Imran Khan, ex-President Dr Arif Alvi and ex-deputy speaker Qasim Suri for dissolving the national assembly 'illegally' in April 2022.

Tarar also announced that the ruling alliance has decided to challenge the supreme court decision through a review petition.

Article 6 of the constitution makes any person who abrogates, subverts, suspends or holds in abeyance, attempts or conspires to so act by use or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means, guilty of high treason. Such acts cannot be validated by the supreme court or high courts but the national assembly has to pass a law to punish such guilty persons.

Expectedly, this announcement met with widespread denunciation and ridicule.

Addressing a press conference (Islamabad, Monday, July 15), PTI leader Omar Ayub, PTI Chairman Gohar Ali Khan and Shibli Faraz strongly condemned the move as 'child's play', aimed to 'divert attention from our seats', adding that it was 'a case of a small mouth making big claims'.

Other political parties joined PTI in denouncing the ruling coalition's proposed move, calling it 'childish' and 'unconstitutional'.

Former prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, who quit the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) recently, and formed a new party, Awam Pakistan, accused the government 'of lacking constitutional and legal understanding', holding that invoking Article 6 could backfire on the rulers'.

The Awami National Party argued that 'stifling political parties was unacceptable'.

Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl's Hafiz Hamdullah questioned whether 'this decision would bring political and economic stability to the country' or 'would it reduce or escalate confrontations?' Pakistan People's Party Senator Raza Rabbani contended 'such actions would lead to political chaos and economic devastation'.

After the supreme court judgment the election commission of Pakistan is expected to implement the provision regarding allotment of reserved seats to the PTI within 15 days.

This would result in the PTI emerging as the single largest party in the national assembly with 114 seats while the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) is left with 108 seats.

The combined Opposition strength comes to 125, with the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl's 8 seats, and 1 seat each to the Balochistan National Party, the Pakhtunkhwa Mili Awami Party and the Majlis Wahdat e Muslameen.

The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) will have 68 seats and the Mohajir Quami Movement (MQM) 21 seats. Others in the ruling alliance include the Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid e Azam) with 5 seats and the Ishtehqam e Pakistan party with 4 seats.

Though the ruling alliance's numbers total to 206, comfortably exceeding the Opposition's tally and its majority in Parliament is not threatened, an exultant Opposition has called upon both the PPP and MQM to define afresh, their position of support or otherwise to the ruling disposition.

In this backdrop, Tarar's announcement can perhaps, be seen as an attempt to flex muscle, reiterating that the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz)'s position should not be interpreted as one of weakness.

It could be intended also as a message of support to Pakistan army chief General Asim Munir and his coterie of generals, to show it was not just twiddling its thumbs against a seemingly biased higher judiciary, even as the latter stood committed in its ongoing confrontation against the military establishment, despite being a divided house within.

References to the supreme court in Pakistan have seldom resulted in reversals providing relief to the aggrieved party.

Petitions filed before it to consider action under Article 6 of the constitution may not provide immediate succor.

Under the circumstances, this announcement may remain limited to bravado and little else, adding momentum to Imran's narrative of victimhood even as his lawyers gird up to tackle several fresh cases indicting him over the May 9, 2023 anti-army violence.

Despite his acquittal in the Iddat case, Imran Khan may have to remain in prison in the foreseeable future.