It was perhaps inevitable that the Islamabad High Court reject the reply submitted by former Prime Minister Imran Khan to its contempt notice, for making threats against a subordinate judge at a public rally, but he still should count it a mercy that he was given a second chance, to file another reply. Even if he wished to contest the notice upon the terms contained in the reply he filed on Monday, he would still have to make the apology. The only thing preventing him from doing so is perhaps his ego, and a desire to avoid any appearance of weakness.
It is perhaps time that Mr Khan realize that it is not the time to play games, that he must take the courts seriously, and meet its requirements. It is not a question of a clash of egos. The IHC clearly does not want to set a precedent by accepting his reply. It is not just the IHC which will be bound by that precedent; so will other High Courts; though it will have only persuasive value before the Supreme Court. The hearing made it apparent that the court probably wanted him to apologize, so that it could dispose of the matter. True, an apology is no guarantee of acquittal, as even a sitting Prime Minister, Yousaf Reza Gilani, can testify. It should do so, and Mr Khan should cooperate with it, because the country has seen, with Mian Nawaz Sharif and the PML(N), the dire consequences the whole country faces when a party leader is removed from politics by judicial fiat.
Mr Khan might fear that apologizing to the IHC might create pressure for him to apologize to the Election Commission of Pakistan, whose proceedings in its contempt notice to him have not been stayed, though the announcement of a judgment has been. Mr Khan’s legal advisers seem to be leading him on a path of confrontation, which he should be avoiding at this moment.
He should change his posture to one of moderation. The IHC has not escaped taunts of being pro-PTI for the relief it has afforded his party. He should not try to push it to the wall, which he is doing at the moment. The IHC, indeed the entire judiciary, should also contemplate whether a law in which the court is a ‘judge in its own cause’ should remain as it is.
