Dear Mr Zahid Hussain, let me refer to your article entitled ” Presidential indiscretion” published in Dawn on Aug 23, 2023.
The substance of your article, against which I want to contend, and which lets the cat out of the bag, is contained in its title and the very first paragraph. So let me begin by quoting this para:
” CURIOUSLY, it was through X [formerly Twitter] that President Arif Alvi chose to deny that he had assented to the bills amending the Official Secrets Act and the Army Act, plunging the country into yet another constitutional crisis. The two disputed bills passed by parliament earlier this month were enacted after the president was deemed to have given his consent. But his tweet two days after the notification has opened a new Pandora’s box.”
And now, with your permission, let me strip this article down to its bare bones as under:
- You have stated that, ” President. chose to deny that he had assented to the bills amending the Official Secrets Act and the Army Act. “
Now let me make clear to you that the ASSENT in the subject case:
–can only be evidenced by his signatures on the subject bills.
–as is well known by now, on the admission of the government, that the President did NOT sign these bills.
–thus he did NOT give his assent to them.
–and because he did not give his assent, how could he possibly have “chosen to deny” an assent he had never given?
But you have made it sound that the President first gave his assent, and then denied it. What compelled you to take this line?
- And then you go on to state: “The two disputed bills passed by parliament earlier this month were enacted after the president was deemed to have given his consent.”
Now let me clarify this issue as under:
— the President can EITHER give his Assent, OR withhold the same by returning the Bill [s] unsigned.
–if he returns a bill unsigned, both houses of Parliament vote on the same in a joint sitting. If the bill passes in this joint sitting, the President is DEEMED to have given his CONSENT to it, and the Bill becomes LAW.
–in the present case it is known that the National Assembly was dissolved BEFORE a joint session of parliament could be held. So, neither bill could have been presented to a joint session. Therefore, the process whereby a vote could be taken on the two bills mentioned by you could not have been taken. And so, a point could NOT have been reached where the President could have been DEEMED to have given his CONSENT.
So, the situation is that the President did NOT give his ASSENT to the two bills in question. Also, it is not possible that it could be deemed that he had given his consent to them. In this situation what is the basis of the position which you are trying to project i.e that the bills were legally enacted and that it was the actions of the President which made the entire issue controversial?
Lastly, I have beef with the title of your article i.e “Presidential indiscretion.” This title is clearly tendentious and gives the game away. It seems you are straining to appear as an honest broker who wants to apportion blame equally between the two sides. Well sometimes Mr Hussain, honesty is indivisible, and the nail needs to be hit squarely on its head. And this was one such time.
You have been writing for a living for a very long time for me to give you any benefit of the doubt in this case. Instead of bringing clarity to your readers on this issue, you seem to have deliberately tried to misinform them. You have tried to muddy the waters. And I suspect that you have tried to do this at the behest of forces which are vested in all things muddy.