SC restraint
July 26th, 2012
With apprehensions running high and speculation running wild, something needed to be done to lower the political temperature. That something came from the Supreme Court yesterday in the form of an accommodating and conciliatory hearing in the NRO implementation case. Without giving any specific directions, the court essentially asked the government to find a compromise and return on Aug 8 with some kind of solution to the writing of the so-called Swiss letter. What could a compromise look like? Perhaps just writing to Swiss authorities that the state of Pakistan no longer con-siders the letter written by the Musharraf-era attorney general, Malik Qayyum, to be legally valid. By stopping at that and not going on to specifically say that the state of Pakistan renews its request for legal assistance, wants once more to secure its status as a civil party in any revived proceedings against President Zardari in Switzerland and is once again laying a claim to the money that was once lodged in the Swiss accounts and which allegedly belonged to Mr Zardari, a compromise of sorts could be fashioned — the Malik Qayyum letter would stand void but the Swiss would not have to consider whether to restart the proceedings against the president. Will the government meet the court halfway now and save its second prime minister and the country from more political instability? The country will know more between now and Aug 8 on that front.
The government should think hard about how it wants to proceed. Welcome as the court’s restraint is, it is unlikely to last indefinitely. At least two reasons — other than perhaps a change of heart at this late stage — can be discerned for the court’s soft approach yesterday. One, the Supreme Court hearings into the new contempt law passed by the government to try and protect Prime Minister Ashraf are still continuing. While that matter has yet to be decided, contempt proceedings against him would be difficult to initiate — after all, were the court to choose to move against Mr Ashraf, would it do so under the old, presently repealed law, or the new, presently under-challenge law?
Two, after having suffered strident and increasingly direct criticism, the court may be aware that it has to tread softly at the moment. Throwing the ball into the government’s court to find an acceptable compromise now will make it more difficult for blame to be pinned on the judiciary later were Prime Minister Ashraf also to find himself in the dock. Now is the time, then, for the government to compromise to disperse the clouds obscuring the election on the horizon.
Steel Mills bailout
July 26th, 2012
Another crisis point, another bailout. Pakistan Steel Mills is to receive Rs8.6bn of public money — in addition to Rs6bn received since December — in yet another attempt to keep the ailing state-owned enterprise on its feet. Over the last few months the finance ministry has provided less money, slower, than it had promised. That is in part why the company racked up more than Rs20bn in losses in 2011-12 alone. But it is also a well-known story that cash injections simply serve to keep PSM afloat for a few months while no fundamental changes are made. In effect, pumping them into the company in its current state means pouring money into a black hole.
The irony is that the main problems and solutions are by now widely discussed and agreed-upon. Professional and independent management and corporate governance are lacking, the company is overstaffed, equipment is outdated and energy-inefficient, capacity utilisation — currently at an abysmal 15 per cent — is unworkably low, and political interference and corruption over the years have bled PSM dry. In part these problems have to do with shortage of cash, but equally they have to do with political will. One simple and immediate step that could be taken, for example, is to install an independent board of governors, consisting of professionals with real authority to hire, fire and review audits they have commissioned, who would appoint a CEO accountable only to them — not a political appointee or a former army officer, as the CEO appointed in April is, but a professional with relevant experience. But the restructuring and crackdown on corruption that could result from this reform might be too unpalatable in an election year. Also, much of the overhaul that is needed cannot be carried out without significant investments much larger than the size of the bailouts PSM is typically given, something the government clearly cannot afford. But privatisation would also be tricky politically as elections app-roach. In the absence of genuine concern for the economy, no one in power at the moment has the incentive to do what is needed to turn PSM around.
Samosa justice
July 26th, 2012
The days of the cheap samosa are over. While the savoury little delight is consumed with great relish by Pakistanis around the year, sales of the samosa skyrocket during Ramazan as it is a staple of the iftar spread. However, the Supreme Court has set aside a notification of the Punjab government regulating the price of samosas. As reported in the media, in 2009 the Lahore local government had fixed the price of the crispy delight at Rs6 a samosa. The local government’s machinery took action against some shopkeepers found to be selling more expensive samosas. However, not satisfied with the price set for their product, the bakers and sweet-makers of the Punjab went to court. When the Lahore High Court turned down their petition, the bakers appealed to the Supreme Court. They felt the samosa did not fall within the purview of the Punjab Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, hence the government could not fix its prices, a notion the apex court seemed to agree with.
While the commercial bakers will rejoice at the verdict, others waiting for justice in Pakistan’s ever-clogged judicial system may be wondering when their turn will come. With a question of interpretation of a law at stake, the Supreme Court was the ultimate forum for resolving the matter, however trifling it may appear to the average citizen. The question, then, is whether the superior judiciary should devise some rules and a system to fast-track more urgent and serious matters for justice rather than spend valuable time on a regulation that is virtually unenforceable in any case — the proof of that being a visit to any market in Lahore where samosas are openly being sold for much higher than Rs6. Samosa-makers may be happy and another case struck from the superior judiciary’s docket, but was it the court’s best use of time at this stage?