What's new

Ex-Con PM Gilani should quit

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 ?

chor giving mubarakbaat to another Chor! epic from both of them! dheet paan ki intehaa!
 
I was reading an article published in The nation, according to the writer the SC judgement is just a warning shot, dont forget 3rd may, when SC will hear/ announce judgement on NRO Implementation case, according to the writer the SC just gave gilani the final warrning that is why if's & but's are used in SC judgement of 26th april, most probably more to come on 3rd may.
 
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 ?

How about both and then some. :hitwall:
 
I was reading an article published in The nation, according to the writer the SC judgement is just a warning shot, dont forget 3rd may, when SC will hear/ announce judgement on NRO Implementation case, according to the writer the SC just gave gilani the final warrning that is why if's & but's are used in SC judgement of 26th april, most probably more to come on 3rd may.

I have been trying to dig up information on the May 2/3 (various dates have been given) verdict. What is that all about? So many cases, I have just lost track.

What is the story in that?
 
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


You forgot one fundamental thing about this man; his pet words are 'I did not mean that.....'.

Mera yeh matlab nahein tha.........
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have been trying to dig up information on the May 2/3 (various dates have been given) verdict. What is that all about? So many cases, I have just lost track.

What is the story in that?

SC verdict a warning shot at PPP
By: Terence J Sigamony | April 28, 2012 | 0
Share


ISLAMABAD - The Thursday judgement could be the warning shot if the government understands its true spirit, therefore instead of diverting the attention of public from detrimental consequences of it, the Prime Minister respecting the judgement should step down.The symbolic punishment could be the sigh of relief for the Premier for the time being but the nightmare is not over yet, as the seven-member Supreme Court has to pass ‘an appropriate order’ on the implementation of NRO on May 3. The court on April 16 deferred this matter till 3rd May 2012, giving another chance to the PM to write letter to the Swiss authorities.The seven-member bench on March 8, 2012, headed by Justice Nasirul Mulk, had clearly directed Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, complying the para 178 of NRO judgement, to write letter to the Swiss authorities for reopening graft cases against the NRO beneficiaries including President Asif Ali Zardari, regardless of the advice of the secretaries; as the “Prime Minister being head of the government and the chief executive of the country has to make the final decision about writing letter to the Swiss authorities for reopening the cases against the President.” There remains no ambiguity in the order, as it has been the main objection of Aitzaz Ahsan in the contempt of court proceedings against the Prime Minister that over the last two years the court never ordered his client directly to implement the judgement.The PM in reply to the seven-member bench order, in a letter through his principal secretary on March 21 refused to comply the court order on NRO implementation, saying; “The very issue in question (the subject matter of the order dated 8.3.2012) is already sub judice in Crl OP.06/2012 before the same honourable bench, and although the present proceedings and the proceedings in the contempt of court case (Crl. O.P.06/2012) are different; yet the issue involved is essentially and materially the same therefore take up it matter after the final decision on contempt of court proceedings.As the issue of contempt has been decided and the PM has been convicted. Now on 3rd May the court exercising its powers under Article 187 of the Constitution read with Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and all other enabling provisions may appoint a Commission to execute the relevant parts of the judgement. Or using the option 2 entail disqualification of PM from being the member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) for five years under Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution and remove the doubts.So far the bench has not used this option. Some senior lawyers say that as the bench acted as trial court therefore it had not used 63(1)(g), but has given hint of it. The might exercise this Article in its order on NRO implementation, if the PM still disregard and disobeyed the order. Over the last two years the court had been issuing warning of serious consequences, which have been disregarded.Majority of the legal experts believes that less than one minute punishment has damaging effect as technically Yusuf Raza Gilani has been disqualified, though he or PPP leaders accepts it or not. Ikram Chaudhry said the court has skilfully passed the judgement. It gave less punishment but gained its objective. He said suppose even if the PM was awarded six months punishment, as given in the section 5 of Contempt of Court Ordinance 2005, it would have not proved fruitful as the President under Article 45 has power to grant pardon, reprieve and respite, and to remit, suspend or commute any sentence passed by any court, tribunal or other authority.He said when he could suspend the sentences of Adnan Khawaja, who was appointed chairman OGDCL, and Ahmed Riaz Sheikh, ex-additional director general FIA then why would he leave his Prime Minister in the trouble.With the 30 seconds sentence the PM and his cabinet minister came happily out of the court but with the stigma of conviction, which could only be washed away by the court. The objective of the court has been fulfilled and technically the PM is disqualified though he, his ministers and the PPP leadership say that the PP is not disqualified. Anwar Mansoor, former attorney general, talking to TheNation said the wording of ridicule the judiciary is not contained in the section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003, but Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution talks about ridiculing the judiciary.He said the other point that the government is trying to confuse is that for the disqualification of a member, if any question arises whether a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has become disqualified from being a member, the Speaker National Assembly shall refer the question to the Election Commission within thirty days. He said the apex court of the country has convicted the PM therefore there should be no doubt in the Speaker’s mind to send the reference to the Election Commission of Pakistan.
 
SC has said that there would be serious consequences of this judgment. This is not the the end of it I think.

Speaker, CEC (who has ordered a copy from SC for further deliberation on PM MNA validity) , further cases, opposition and IK long march threats and all this.

Anybody going to vouch for Wahid kakar like formula to come in?
 
the real issue is that NO ONE wants to come into government & PRESENT the budget! and PPP to be honest wants to become political Shaheed & go and not just step down hence PPP is sticking to its gun & wishing that either Army overthrows them or SC overthrows them!
 
As a student of history of Pakistan, my feelings in this case are mixed. On one hand there is little doubt that ‘Contempt’ of the highest court of Pakistan has been committed and as such her verdict of sentencing the sitting PM is correct.

On the other hand, there are extenuating circumstances. Firstly Court can only issue a decree, execution of the decree is thru the Executive. A simple question of practicability. Was it a practical matter to order a PM to write a letter to another court against his own Head of State?

Secondly, whatever the shape of democracy may be in our country, there is no denying the fact the Gilani has been elected thru constitutional means. Is it democratic to remove an elected PM thru judicial means?

May be the SC should have ordered that the letter should be written after the end of Zardari presidency. The case in question goes back to 1990’s, another year of so could hardly make a difference.

There is no one above the law but the law must also be seen to be just. For example ZAB was sentenced by the Supreme Court; however everyone today calls it a judicial murder! Recent events especially in the memo gate case give clear indications that Supreme Court in general and the CJ in particular are biased and pro PML-N.

As mentioned in the Nazir Naji’s article today, total number of people supporting CJ was less than one lac in a country of 18 crores! Unprecedented coverage of electronic media plus support of political parties gave the false impression that whole of Pakistan had come out on the streets. CJ obviously feels obligated to Nawaz Sharif.

I don’t think that any one has come out smelling good from this episode. I hope sooner this CJ retires the better for everyone; it is bad enough to have tainted politicians, but to have a Chief Justice who is tainted with political bias?

A poignant article published in the Daily News is noted below.




Articles 62 and 63


Harris Khalique
Friday, April 27, 2012


I am not a legal expert but as a citizen and a keen student of my country’s political history, I have an opinion on Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

Apparently, the court has not invoked Article 63(1)g directly and convicted the prime minister under section 5 of the contempt of court ordinance, but it does mention the said article in its verdict and says that the finding and the conviction are likely to entail some serious consequences in terms of this article which may be treated as a mitigating factor to the sentence they pass. Meaning thereby, since the convict may face disqualification from his office and his seat in parliament, they have restricted themselves to a softer sentence.

The issue of writing a letter to the Swiss Courts to reopen cases against President Asif Ali Zardari, came to surface after the court struck down the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) in 2009, which was issued in 2007 by former president, Gen Pervez Musharraf.

The status of the president enjoying constitutional immunity from any judicial trial apart, one may argue that some judges who took oath under the same dictator’s Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) and gave his rule lease by sitting on a bench headed by the former Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, found the NRO illegal.

One may also say that the honourable judges are selective in considering cases of the same nature involving other people. Then they also took another year and a half to dismiss the review petition filed by the government. But there is a limit to historicising. Therefore, let us now look at 63(1)g, the complete article it is a part of, and, the preceding Article 62 of the Constitution.

These articles were a part of the 1973 Constitution, subsequently amended in 1974 and made harsher in 1985. Article 62 deals with the qualifications for becoming a member of parliament and Article 63 deals with causes for disqualification from the membership.

While there are obvious reasons to have qualification and disqualification criteria for members in any constitution, the articles our Constitution contains have serious lacunae which can always be used to politically victimise any elected member.

The terms like good character, good moral reputation, moral turpitude, practising obligatory duties prescribed by Islam, abstaining from major sins, Islamic injunctions, Ideology of Pakistan, bringing into ridicule the judiciary or the armed forces, etc are vague, immeasurable and hard to establish in a just way.

For instance, in legal terms, public life is affected by crime and not sin. Morality is a relative concept and good reputation is highly subjective. There was a two-nation theory when Pakistan was created. The Ideology of Pakistan became a usable term only after Gen Sher Ali Pataudi promoted it in 1969, soon to be desecrated in the eastern wing of the country. Besides, what does ridiculing mean?

If some of the judges used the law of necessity in the past, legitimised dictatorships or ruled under duress, can no parliamentarian of Pakistan raise her concerns? If some generals abrogate the Constitution, manipulate political events and violate the limits put by the Constitution, can no parliamentarian raise his voice?

I share my view of Articles 62 and 63 with also Imran Khan, whose politics I otherwise find without substance. He said in June 2007, when the MQM presented a resolution against him, that these articles can only be applied to angels and not human beings.

The writer is an Islamabad-based poet and author. Email: harris.khalique@gmail.com

Articles 62 and 63 - Harris Khalique
 
the real issue is that NO ONE wants to come into government & PRESENT the budget! and PPP to be honest wants to become political Shaheed & go and not just step down hence PPP is sticking to its gun & wishing that either Army overthrows them or SC overthrows them!

The army option cud be the worst but looks most likely to happen.
 
The army option cud be the worst but looks most likely to happen.

won't happen for sure. NO ONE wants to come to power before the budget in june-july. secondly Army wants to make sure 10 bad years pass before they come back to power! people haven't forgotten musharraf era yet. the truth of the matter is army comes to power when there is some money in treasury. We are bankcrupt currently as a nation.
 
If one lOoks at it a bit closely, PPP does have a point. The president does have immunity (ironic for the Islamic republic) and ppp are saying that they will or the other government will write the letter after a delay, when zardari goes.
 
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 ?
Same, absolutely disgusting and I usually defend MQM
 
These shameless politicians never resign, i dont know why people vote these crooks
 
Back
Top Bottom