Yes, I am aware of the interim or new constitution tha musharraf brought, after suspending the original one. However, that doesn't make his act unconstitutional, because he ahd no authority to suspend the original one in the first place. Unless the constitution is amended through a proper legislative procedure by thee will of the people, it still stands.
You are turning to what I have never argued in this thread. I never made any comment on legitimacy or illegitimacy of his act in isolation - what all I referred to was an amendment in constitution that protected Musharraf from any persecution. Anyway, are you sure you know a provision in constitution pertaining proclamation of emergency & contorted justifications of previous ones by SC?
Are you trying to say that constitution in 99 was never suspended because Musharaf had no authority to suspend it? If that the case then everything that Musharaf did was absolutely illegal and unconstitutional, for he issued PCOs and LFOs in the presence of a legally operative constitution & under article 6 it is high treason! Now what is your point?
What makes the said act unconstitutional, without wordplay, is the fact that operative constitution bars any of such acts. The constitution which was operative at that time allowed no one to suspend it - and as you yourself has stated that he (Musharaf) had no authority to suspend the constitution so by all means his act remains unconstitutional.
Suspending the constitution is unconstitutional. That may sound paradoxical, because if the constitution is suspended, then there is no constitution to be unconstitutional any more. However, if that was the case, why do you think the constitution has such an article in it? Surely there is no point in making it unconstitutional to suspend the constitution?.
What? What are you trying to put up? Suspending an already operative constitution is unconstitutional in itself! Whats your point?
You got to understand the meaning of
provision in a constitution, don't confuse it with articles. Read the provision about proclamation of emergency in part X of the constitution of Pakistan you'll discover a lot different. Even in your constitution there's a provision about emergency now does it mean your constitution allows generals to intervene every now and then?
So if a strongman, throuugh the power of guns and gunmen, declare the constitution void, that doesnt mean that the constitution's clear instruction against such an act becomes void. I am pretty sure that he can still be tried for suspending the constitution and the legislature and judiciary. Whether he will be or will not, I don't know.
You are not getting anything despite of clearance. Look, Musharaf after intervention in 99 issued a Provisional constitutional order and asked judges of SC and HC to take an oath on it - they took and vindicated his intervention and allowed him to stay as chief executive of the country for 3 years. Musharaf afterwards held a presidential referendum, exceeded the mandate given to him by his own judges, and got himself elected as president of Pakistan. He restored the actual constitution of the country and issued presidential orders in his favor. Presidential orders are of short life, have life of 60 or 90 days - He as a president issued LFO which allowed elections to happen (2002 elections) & by manipulation got his own party, PML-Q, elected. Now that means a parliament elected by people of Pakistan came into existence, no matter how it came into existence. The Parliament through 17th amendment validated each and every order (till 2003) that Musharaf had ever passed. Since he enjoys immunity, given to him by the parliament elected by people of Pakistan, he cannot be prosecuted for his actions he took till 2003. However, as pointed earlier, his act of imposition of emergency in 2007 does not have any parliamentary indemnity & he can be persecuted for this.
