Ex-Con PM Gilani should quit

[Sugarcane]

گیلانی بھی پھٹ پڑے| Saach TV

 

[Jango]

1. Are we living in a safe environemnt
2. Is govt honestly spending our money
3. Is the over all Governance adequate

If this can be done by

Army
Dictator
Democratically elected Govt
Me

I frankly do not give a HOT DAMN

and this kind of musical chairs , history is full of it

Got to agree with this. People want education for their children, healthcare, food and a good life. Nobody gives two hoots it comes from Martial law, democracy, monarchy or anything.

A mistake that this government is making is that they are mixing democracy with themselves. They think that if they go down, democracy goes down. They are comparing themselves with democracy.

In WWII, London was being bombed,Churchill asked, are the courts working, the answer came yes, Churchill said 'we will win'.

 

[Leader]

Got to agree with this. People want education for their children, healthcare, food and a good life. Nobody gives two hoots it comes from Martial law, democracy, monarchy or anything.

A mistake that this government is making is that they are mixing democracy with themselves. They think that if they go down, democracy goes down. They are comparing themselves with democracy.

In WWII, London was being bombed,Churchill asked, are the courts working, the answer came yes, Churchill said 'we will win'.

people might not care as you have right pointed out, but we have to have a system that has a value in eyes of the international community, the people dont understand this, but we should know that the longer run we have to make this country presentable model.

secondly point you made is absolutely true, the reason being is simple they are not democrats in nature, feudal and typical power hungry goons.

thirdly the problem with Courts is that constitutional courts are working, but lower courts arenot, so justice is not being prevailed, so we have a serious problem here.

 

[Jango]

secondly point you made is absolutely true, the reason being is simple they are not democrats in nature, feudal and typical power hungry goons.

thirdly the problem with Courts is that constitutional courts are working, but lower courts arenot, so justice is not being prevailed, so we have a serious problem here.

As for your second point, there is no doubt about that.

As for the judiciary part, this does take time when somebody ruined the system in ten years. But slowly but surely, the lower courts are also getting into action, but the police system and the investigative system fails to support the court properly.

 

[Hyde]

Gilani should have resigned immediately if he has any self-respect. He once himself agreed that he will be automatically disqualified if convicted by the court

 

[darkinsky]

court did the wrong sentence, he thinks he is free now, he should have been served a longer sentence in the jail

 

[fatman17]

Opinion


Another badge of honour


Babar Sattar
Saturday, April 28, 2012


The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.



What was the point of taking note of the contempt matter and dragging it on for months if all the gumption that the Supreme Court was capable of was inflicting 30 seconds of shame? This is the gist of one set of criticisms of the prime minister’s contempt case. The case and its verdict are devoid of legal merit and completely political, being a continuation of our judiciary’s history and proclivity to treat the PPP unfairly, charge the minions of the Zardari PPP. Why is the court obsessing over high-profile cases affecting a handful of individuals within the echelons of power that have no relevance to the lives and miseries of the ordinary folk, is yet another criticism. Is there a gap between what the court did and what it ought to have done in the prime minister’s contempt case?


The prime minister was charged, under Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, for wilfully disobeying a final order of the Supreme Court in a manner that tended to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrespect and disrepute. The instruction included in the NRO judgment of writing to the Swiss authorities to state that Pakistan never legally withdrew its status as a civil party in money laundering proceedings, involving some 60 million dollars stolen from Pakistan was unambiguous. The prime minister took a position in court that he was bound by the advice rendered by his law ministry asking him not to write to the Swiss on the ground that the matter involved Asif Zardari and such a letter couldn’t be written in view of Article 248 of the Constitution that affords the president immunity against criminal proceedings.



The prime minister accepted such advice but didn’t require the federal government to raise the issue of presidential immunity in the review filed against the NRO ruling, which once dismissed made the NRO order final and unalterable. On hearing the prime minister’s excuse for not complying with the NRO order, the Supreme Court once again asked the prime minister to remedy the wrong and write the letter, even if he previously believed that he was under an obligation not to. To this the prime minister responded with a two-pronged strategy: in court his lawyer raised technical arguments about due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution; and in the political arena the narrative about personal loyalty to the party head taking precedence over compliance with court orders and the judicial wolf eyeing the poor PPP was reinvigorated.



Notwithstanding Aitzaz Ahsan’s clever play with words, it was hard to fudge the underlying reality: the NRO judgment had attained finality and required to be implemented, and the prime minister and the PPP had decided not to do so, come what may.



The Supreme Court repeatedly persuaded the prime minister to comply with the court order without avail and consequently a guilty verdict in the contempt matter was the writing on the wall. It is hard to see how any amount of legal wizardry could have obfuscated the facts or changed settled law: the principle of separation of power dictates that the judiciary has the last word on the meaning of the Constitution and its interpretation is binding on the executive; and the prime minister doesn’t have the privilege to determine that it might not be an opportune time to implement a binding court order in view of his personal reading of the Constitution.



In this backdrop, the court had no option but to convict the prime minister and it did. That is the first component of the short order. The second component deals with sentencing. The prime minister was punished till the rising of the court. The doctrine of proportionality requires that punishment should be commensurate with the wrong done. If the prime minister has indeed flouted a binding court directive deliberately and brought the judiciary and the administration of law into disrespect, why was he being let go with a slap on the wrist?


The court hinted that the prime minister’s contempt conviction was likely to trigger Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution, and disqualification as member of the National Assembly and consequently prime minister being serious punishment, the court viewed that as a mitigating factor in determining the quantum of his punishment under the contempt law.



Article 63(2) of the Constitution requires the speaker of the National Assembly to refer the matter of disqualification of a member within 30 days of it having arisen, unless she affirmatively declares that no such question has arisen. Thus, if the Supreme Court ruling states that Article 63(1)(g) has been triggered, the question of disqualification has arisen without doubt.



The speaker then, devoid of any discretion in opining on the question of disqualification, is required to act as a conduit and send the matter to the Election Commission. The Election Commission, under Article 63(3) then has 90 days to act. The language of Section 3 of the Contempt Ordinance and Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution is analogous.



Further, section 18 of the Contempt Ordinance states that a court finding that the contempt is substantially detrimental to the administration of justice or scandalous is a prerequisite for a guilty verdict in a contempt case.



In other words, since the promulgation of the Contempt Ordinance, 2003, there cannot possibly be a contempt verdict against a parliamentarian that doesn’t trigger Article 63(1)(g). Now that the prime minister has been declared guilty of contempt, his disqualification under Article 63(1)(g) is a natural corollary of such conviction. The only thing that remains to happen is the completion of the process of disqualification, as mandated by Article 63(2) and (3). And in complying with the process neither the speaker nor the Election Commission has the authority to sit in judgment over the decision of the Supreme Court and determine whether Article 63(1)(g) has been rightly invoked, unless the detailed order of the Supreme Court itself leaves the question open for adjudication by the Election Commission. Hopefully the detailed order will clarify all this.



Let us revert to the criticisms we started with. The object of the Contempt law is not to award rigorous imprisonment to derelicts, but to censure them with a view to ensure compliance of court orders. The glare over prime minister’s contempt case was not due to the court’s beckoning, but due to media’s over-enthusiasm. Those who aspired to see the case instigating regime change or the prime minister being handcuffed and Pakistan being turned into a circus had set themselves up for disappointment.



But more dangerously, the PPP instead of recognising the judicial restraint applied here now seems eager to brew a clash between parliament and the judicature. Its legal wizards have the audacity to assert that the speaker can sit in appeal over the court ruling and declare that no question about disqualification has arisen. The trend here is consistent. The contempt case was fundamentally about the ruling regime refusing to acknowledge that judicial decisions are binding on the executive. Its response to the contempt decision is that the speaker of the National Assembly can also disregard clear orders of our highest court.



Such invidious interpretation of the Constitution and the deliberate provocation of a conflict between two coordinate pillars of the state will hurt our scheme of separation of powers and the evolution of institutional norms and practices likely to strengthen democracy and rule of law. And none of this is irrelevant for the ordinary folk for at the heart of this debate is the question of whether in our country the law applies to the weak and the mighty alike and whether loyalty to individuals will continue to trump allegiance to the Constitution. This is a battle between the ugly status quo and hope for change. It is time to pick sides.



Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu

 

[fatman17]

‘Ex-con’ Prime Minister?

Farrukh Saleem

Saturday, April 28, 2012


ISLAMABAD: Legal arguments will not cease until heaven and earth pass away, but the three facts are: the 16th Prime Minister of Pakistan was found guilty of a crime; he was sentenced by the Supreme Court; he served the sentence and was released. The dictionary defines a convict as a “person found guilty of a crime and sentenced by a court.” An ex-convict, or ex-con, is a “common way of referring to a person who has been released” after serving his sentence.



The ‘ex-con’ label, in the world outside the Land of the Pure, attracts lifelong implications including social stigma, vilification, societal and employment discrimination. Social stigma is when society thinks that a particular person has done something “really bad”. Social stigma is the “severe disapproval of, or discontent with, a person on the grounds of” criminality. As a consequence there are severe consequences including being branded for life, employment plus loan discrimination. All in all, these are all societal measures to discourage such behaviour.



Now peep into the Land of the Pure - ANP is supporting an ex-con; MQM is supporting an ex-con, and PML(Q) is supporting an ex-con. Plus, the day the Supreme Court found the PM guilty of a crime saw a PPP candidate winning in Multan PP-194 by-elections. Where do you think the PM went right after his conviction - he went on to chair a cabinet meeting. Obviously, there is no societal or voter pressure on ANP, MQM or PML(Q). Obviously, there is no correlation between Pakistani voter’s behaviour and criminality of the political party or the candidate.



According to Max Weber, a German political economist, there are two types of politicians: the power broker who “has no firm political principles ... is completely without conviction and is interested only in how to attract votes.” The other type is the conviction politician who makes “use of purely emotive language of the kind also employed by the Salvation Army in order to set the masses in motion.”



To be certain, the 16th Prime Minister of Pakistan is a perfectly a rational political player. He must have closely analyzed the risk-reward matrix of his behaviour and actions. Obviously, he had concluded that being declared an ‘ex-con’ has more rewards than risks. And why did the 16th Prime Minister of Pakistan reach that conclusion - because the Pakistani voter attaches no stigma to being an ‘ex-con’.



Law does not belong to the courts alone, the Pakistani society-and the voter-must also vilify and discriminate against the behaviour and actions that have been declared as being criminal or illegal by the courts. And if we don’t do that we will continue getting leaders we deserve.

 

[ice_man]

say whatever you want but PPP & its allies have shown that there is no STOPPING A SHAMELESS man & parties! i think PPP & its allies should teach a course in university about HOW to be bhaigaiarat! but good job supreme court they didn't make PPP a political shaheed! and pakistanis have survived 4 years i am sure we can survive another 8 or 9 months!

 

[Guvera]

Altaf Hussain had a telefonic conversation with gilani congratulated him on his Histroric speech in NA i mean what shud this be called as, pure jahalat ? or bay sharmi ki inteha ?

 

[Awesome]

‘Ex-con’ Prime Minister?

Farrukh Saleem

Saturday, April 28, 2012


ISLAMABAD: Legal arguments will not cease until heaven and earth pass away, but the three facts are: the 16th Prime Minister of Pakistan was found guilty of a crime; he was sentenced by the Supreme Court; he served the sentence and was released. The dictionary defines a convict as a “person found guilty of a crime and sentenced by a court.” An ex-convict, or ex-con, is a “common way of referring to a person who has been released” after serving his sentence.



The ‘ex-con’ label, in the world outside the Land of the Pure, attracts lifelong implications including social stigma, vilification, societal and employment discrimination. Social stigma is when society thinks that a particular person has done something “really bad”. Social stigma is the “severe disapproval of, or discontent with, a person on the grounds of” criminality. As a consequence there are severe consequences including being branded for life, employment plus loan discrimination. All in all, these are all societal measures to discourage such behaviour.



Now peep into the Land of the Pure - ANP is supporting an ex-con; MQM is supporting an ex-con, and PML(Q) is supporting an ex-con. Plus, the day the Supreme Court found the PM guilty of a crime saw a PPP candidate winning in Multan PP-194 by-elections. Where do you think the PM went right after his conviction - he went on to chair a cabinet meeting. Obviously, there is no societal or voter pressure on ANP, MQM or PML(Q). Obviously, there is no correlation between Pakistani voter’s behaviour and criminality of the political party or the candidate.



According to Max Weber, a German political economist, there are two types of politicians: the power broker who “has no firm political principles ... is completely without conviction and is interested only in how to attract votes.” The other type is the conviction politician who makes “use of purely emotive language of the kind also employed by the Salvation Army in order to set the masses in motion.”



To be certain, the 16th Prime Minister of Pakistan is a perfectly a rational political player. He must have closely analyzed the risk-reward matrix of his behaviour and actions. Obviously, he had concluded that being declared an ‘ex-con’ has more rewards than risks. And why did the 16th Prime Minister of Pakistan reach that conclusion - because the Pakistani voter attaches no stigma to being an ‘ex-con’.



Law does not belong to the courts alone, the Pakistani society-and the voter-must also vilify and discriminate against the behaviour and actions that have been declared as being criminal or illegal by the courts. And if we don’t do that we will continue getting leaders we deserve.

Kamran Khan referred to Gilani as Saza Yafta Mujrim PM Gilani during the hearing process and since then has referred to him as Saza Yafta PM Gilani.

The prefix of Saza Yafta should be used till he quits, in that spirit let's change the thread title.

 

[Awesome]

Ex-Con PM Gilani must quit!

 

[fatman17]

Altaf Hussain had a telefonic conversation with gilani congratulated him on his Histroric speech in NA i mean what shud this be called as, pure jahalat ? or bay sharmi ki inteha ?

or both !!!!

 

[Tameem]

Kamran Khan referred to Gilani as Saza Yafta Mujrim PM Gilani during the hearing process and since then has referred to him as Saza Yafta PM Gilani.

The prefix of Saza Yafta should be used till he quits, in that spirit let's change the thread title.

Excellent, I think we all should use this prefix in our posts too whenever he needed to be remember anytime from now onwards.

 

[Awesome]

Opinion


Another badge of honour


Babar Sattar
Saturday, April 28, 2012


The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.



What was the point of taking note of the contempt matter and dragging it on for months if all the gumption that the Supreme Court was capable of was inflicting 30 seconds of shame? This is the gist of one set of criticisms of the prime minister’s contempt case. The case and its verdict are devoid of legal merit and completely political, being a continuation of our judiciary’s history and proclivity to treat the PPP unfairly, charge the minions of the Zardari PPP. Why is the court obsessing over high-profile cases affecting a handful of individuals within the echelons of power that have no relevance to the lives and miseries of the ordinary folk, is yet another criticism. Is there a gap between what the court did and what it ought to have done in the prime minister’s contempt case?


The prime minister was charged, under Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, for wilfully disobeying a final order of the Supreme Court in a manner that tended to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrespect and disrepute. The instruction included in the NRO judgment of writing to the Swiss authorities to state that Pakistan never legally withdrew its status as a civil party in money laundering proceedings, involving some 60 million dollars stolen from Pakistan was unambiguous. The prime minister took a position in court that he was bound by the advice rendered by his law ministry asking him not to write to the Swiss on the ground that the matter involved Asif Zardari and such a letter couldn’t be written in view of Article 248 of the Constitution that affords the president immunity against criminal proceedings.



The prime minister accepted such advice but didn’t require the federal government to raise the issue of presidential immunity in the review filed against the NRO ruling, which once dismissed made the NRO order final and unalterable. On hearing the prime minister’s excuse for not complying with the NRO order, the Supreme Court once again asked the prime minister to remedy the wrong and write the letter, even if he previously believed that he was under an obligation not to. To this the prime minister responded with a two-pronged strategy: in court his lawyer raised technical arguments about due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution; and in the political arena the narrative about personal loyalty to the party head taking precedence over compliance with court orders and the judicial wolf eyeing the poor PPP was reinvigorated.



Notwithstanding Aitzaz Ahsan’s clever play with words, it was hard to fudge the underlying reality: the NRO judgment had attained finality and required to be implemented, and the prime minister and the PPP had decided not to do so, come what may.



The Supreme Court repeatedly persuaded the prime minister to comply with the court order without avail and consequently a guilty verdict in the contempt matter was the writing on the wall. It is hard to see how any amount of legal wizardry could have obfuscated the facts or changed settled law: the principle of separation of power dictates that the judiciary has the last word on the meaning of the Constitution and its interpretation is binding on the executive; and the prime minister doesn’t have the privilege to determine that it might not be an opportune time to implement a binding court order in view of his personal reading of the Constitution.



In this backdrop, the court had no option but to convict the prime minister and it did. That is the first component of the short order. The second component deals with sentencing. The prime minister was punished till the rising of the court. The doctrine of proportionality requires that punishment should be commensurate with the wrong done. If the prime minister has indeed flouted a binding court directive deliberately and brought the judiciary and the administration of law into disrespect, why was he being let go with a slap on the wrist?


The court hinted that the prime minister’s contempt conviction was likely to trigger Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution, and disqualification as member of the National Assembly and consequently prime minister being serious punishment, the court viewed that as a mitigating factor in determining the quantum of his punishment under the contempt law.



Article 63(2) of the Constitution requires the speaker of the National Assembly to refer the matter of disqualification of a member within 30 days of it having arisen, unless she affirmatively declares that no such question has arisen. Thus, if the Supreme Court ruling states that Article 63(1)(g) has been triggered, the question of disqualification has arisen without doubt.



The speaker then, devoid of any discretion in opining on the question of disqualification, is required to act as a conduit and send the matter to the Election Commission. The Election Commission, under Article 63(3) then has 90 days to act. The language of Section 3 of the Contempt Ordinance and Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution is analogous.



Further, section 18 of the Contempt Ordinance states that a court finding that the contempt is substantially detrimental to the administration of justice or scandalous is a prerequisite for a guilty verdict in a contempt case.



In other words, since the promulgation of the Contempt Ordinance, 2003, there cannot possibly be a contempt verdict against a parliamentarian that doesn’t trigger Article 63(1)(g). Now that the prime minister has been declared guilty of contempt, his disqualification under Article 63(1)(g) is a natural corollary of such conviction. The only thing that remains to happen is the completion of the process of disqualification, as mandated by Article 63(2) and (3). And in complying with the process neither the speaker nor the Election Commission has the authority to sit in judgment over the decision of the Supreme Court and determine whether Article 63(1)(g) has been rightly invoked, unless the detailed order of the Supreme Court itself leaves the question open for adjudication by the Election Commission. Hopefully the detailed order will clarify all this.



Let us revert to the criticisms we started with. The object of the Contempt law is not to award rigorous imprisonment to derelicts, but to censure them with a view to ensure compliance of court orders. The glare over prime minister’s contempt case was not due to the court’s beckoning, but due to media’s over-enthusiasm. Those who aspired to see the case instigating regime change or the prime minister being handcuffed and Pakistan being turned into a circus had set themselves up for disappointment.



But more dangerously, the PPP instead of recognising the judicial restraint applied here now seems eager to brew a clash between parliament and the judicature. Its legal wizards have the audacity to assert that the speaker can sit in appeal over the court ruling and declare that no question about disqualification has arisen. The trend here is consistent. The contempt case was fundamentally about the ruling regime refusing to acknowledge that judicial decisions are binding on the executive. Its response to the contempt decision is that the speaker of the National Assembly can also disregard clear orders of our highest court.



Such invidious interpretation of the Constitution and the deliberate provocation of a conflict between two coordinate pillars of the state will hurt our scheme of separation of powers and the evolution of institutional norms and practices likely to strengthen democracy and rule of law. And none of this is irrelevant for the ordinary folk for at the heart of this debate is the question of whether in our country the law applies to the weak and the mighty alike and whether loyalty to individuals will continue to trump allegiance to the Constitution. This is a battle between the ugly status quo and hope for change. It is time to pick sides.



Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu

If the speaker does not initiate ineligibility proceedings against the PM, she should be brought to the court and she should be dragged through the mud.

See, PPP can resist legalities since they are the government, but then the courts should do the maximum to ensure they are bisti-fied to the point where they can never return.

Ex-Con Gilani was just one person. Ek ek ki files kholo and gandha karo for their indiscretions to the law.