NRO no more! SC gives its verdict! All cases revived!
- Thread starter mr42O
- Start date
abbasniazi
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,149
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
PPP is making mistakes over mistakes and killing itself for a corrupt person.
If they keep on committing such mistakes, PPP will come down to the level of PML(Q) politically.
If they keep on committing such mistakes, PPP will come down to the level of PML(Q) politically.
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
Oh yeh. Get him that Idiot had harmed Pakistan badly
---------- Post added at 10:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 PM ----------
Supreme Court strikes down NRO
Updated at: 2206 PST, Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Supreme Court strikes down NRO ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has struck down the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), saying it is unconstitutional.
A 17-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, in his short order, declared the ordinance as unconstitutional and illegal.
According to the judgment, the NRO is contrary to the equality guaranteed by the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan. Similarly, all the cases, disposed off because of the controversial ordinance, now stand revived as of Oct 5, 2007 position, said the judgment.
In addition, the court has ordered the government that it should immediately reopen the Swiss cases concerning President Asif Ali Zardari.
Earlier, during hearing of petitions against the NRO, the chief justice said even parliament has no right to change the basic structure of the constitution.
“In accordance to oath, we are committed to safeguard the constitution,” he remarked.
Earlier, the chief justice has warned the NAB Chairman Naveed Ahsan about a stern action if something false detected in the list. He ordered the NAB Chairman to sign the list if it was correct. On the court’s order, he signed the list.
The court summoned the summary file of directives issued for the elimination Swiss cases when the hearing resumed on Wednesday. On the excuse of acting attorney general, the court summoned principal secretary and secretary law. Secretary law while presenting the file in the court said attorney general wrote the letter for withdrawal of cases on the directives of Asif Zardari’s lawyer Farooq H Naek that was opposed by the than law minister Zahid Hamid.
The court has expressed displeasure on acting attorney general and said he hide the truth. The principal secretary of president Salman Farooqi informed the court that cases files are not present in presidency. The files were in president’ camp office in Rawalpindi.
The court advisor Mian Allah Nawaz in his arguments termed the NRO as ****** law and said any, which is beneficial for some individuals, is illegal. Another court advisor Shaiq Usmani said there is no legal ground of giving amenity under NRO. President could only issue the ordinance, which will convert into law by the assembly.
In his remarks, chief justice said how assembly could declare corruption as legal. The judges in their remarks said NRO is against Quranic teachings and amenity could only be given to political cases.
The judges said that if it were an ordinance for national reconciliation, then Baloch leaders and Altaf Hussain should also have been called to the country. During the final stages of the hearing, Salman Raja, Akram Chaudhry, Dr Farooq Hussain, Shahid Orakzai and Abdul Hafiz Pirzada completed their arguments.
Awesome
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,023
- Reaction score
- 5
They didn't waste any time!
.:: SAMAA - PML-N demands President Zardari?s resignation, midterm elections
.:: SAMAA - PML-N demands President Zardari?s resignation, midterm elections
Adios Amigo
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,189
- Reaction score
- 1
that's why he didn't wanna reinstate the judges. He knew what was coming. Hammer.
true indeed, but he never knew that the lawyers movement would succed under public pressures, or else he would have never restored them. we are evolving as a nation. and the evolution is through some kind of revolutions. though we may face the heat durring the revolutionary periods, but the good thing about this is, that lessons learned the hard way are not forgotten but rembered for always.
adios
Last edited:
mr42O
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2009
- Messages
- 6,178
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Lets now find out how much Sharif and choudry brothers has borrow money from banks.
Nawaz sharif was in Oslo when he was prime minister and use 3 mill. kroner for on nite in Grand hotel were Obama also stayed when he was here last week. All these person are currput.
Nawaz sharif was in Oslo when he was prime minister and use 3 mill. kroner for on nite in Grand hotel were Obama also stayed when he was here last week. All these person are currput.
ghazi52
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 102,110
- Reaction score
- 106
- Country
- Location
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
What about that article inducted in the constitution under which President can not be trialed in any court of law in the country???
Is it still intact ??
Is it still intact ??
SSGPA1
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 2,632
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Yes to resignation of Zaradri
Yes to another President from PPPP
A big No to mid-term elections
Quite frankly no one has to resign even if the cases are for corruption etc.
PML-N should come to senses this is no time for mid-term elections in Pakistan espicially when NA-55 & 110 bye elections couldn't be held due to security.
Yes to another President from PPPP
A big No to mid-term elections
Quite frankly no one has to resign even if the cases are for corruption etc.
PML-N should come to senses this is no time for mid-term elections in Pakistan espicially when NA-55 & 110 bye elections couldn't be held due to security.
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/world/asia/16zardari.html
Court Examines Pakistan Leader’s Offshore Riches
By JANE PERLEZ and SALMAN MASOOD
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Indignant Supreme Court judges on Tuesday demanded to know why $60 million in the suspect gains of President Asif Ali Zardari had been given back to offshore companies in his name rather than returned to the national treasury, where they said it rightfully belonged.
The barrage of questions directed at flustered anticorruption officials was the latest round of embarrassment for Mr. Zardari. He is fighting for his political life as the court hears arguments about the legality of an amnesty decree that was devised in 2007 with the help of the United States and Britain as part of a deal to engineer the comeback of Mr. Zardari’s wife, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, after years in exile.
The decree, which dismissed past corruption allegations, is likely to be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the coming days. Such a ruling would further weaken Mr. Zardari, Washington’s chief civilian partner in Pakistan, and perhaps set the stage for his eventual downfall, legal experts and politicians say.
Mr. Zardari was a primary beneficiary of the amnesty decree, and though he enjoys immunity from prosecution as president, opponents are planning recourse through the courts to overcome that immunity, lawyers said.
Mr. Zardari became president eight months after his wife was assassinated in December 2007. He had served 11 years in jail on charges of corruption and murder that he and his lawyers have always insisted were politically motivated.
Mr. Zardari’s presidential spokesman, Farhatullah Babar, this week reiterated the position that the corruption charges were unfounded. Mr. Zardari and his lawyers say he was never convicted. But whether or not he was convicted remains in question because he did not turn up at a past court hearing, and the issue may yet become central to his future in the presidency, legal experts said.
The hearings that began last week on the amnesty decree, known as the National Reconciliation Order, have served to expose Mr. Zardari all over again as a “man widely perceived as corrupt,” the leading newspaper, Dawn, said in an editorial.
In one document presented to the court by the National Accountability Bureau, the government office that oversees corruption cases, Mr. Zardari was alleged to hold $1.5 billion in assets, including land and overseas bank accounts.
Mr. Babar, the presidential spokesman, described the document as wildly inaccurate.
The $60 million that the judges zeroed in on Tuesday represented money that the bureau said in 2003 documents had been placed in a Swiss bank account by Mr. Zardari and Ms. Bhutto.
An official of the bureau told the court on Tuesday that $13 million represented illegal commissions Mr. Zardari received from two Swiss companies, Cotecna and Société Générale de Surveillance, after they were awarded a contract for preshipment inspections for imports to Pakistan.
The remaining $47 million, the official contended, represented illegal commissions for other contracts awarded to foreign companies when Mr. Zardari was a cabinet minister during Ms. Bhutto’s time as prime minister.
The $60 million was frozen in Switzerland while court cases were brought against Mr. Zardari and Ms. Bhutto in the early days of the government of President Pervez Musharraf. The money was apparently returned to offshore bank accounts in Mr. Zardari’s name after the amnesty decree was imposed by President Musharraf in November 2007.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on Tuesday repeatedly asked who had authorized the money’s return to the accounts. The officials from the accountability bureau, now considered a powerless entity that answers to the current government, had no answers.
Chief Justice Chaudhry ordered the former attorney general under Mr. Musharraf, Malik Muhammad Qayyum, to appear before the court. Mr. Qayyum did not have a direct answer to that question either, but he did say he had acted on the authority of Mr. Musharraf to have the cases against Mr. Zardari withdrawn.
Mr. Zardari is struggling to maintain his authority under pressure from the military and a vocal section of the news media. The Pakistani Army in effect accused him of attacking its interests after he supported a Washington aid package that included provisions calling for greater civilian control over the military.
Afraid of becoming the target of a terrorist attack, the unpopular Mr. Zardari rarely leaves the presidential building, where he has remained for much of the last 10 days as the Supreme Court has whittled away at his authority.
Mr. Zardari has been banking on presidential immunity to save his position. But lawyers fighting the legality of the amnesty decree say that once the decree is declared null and void, Mr. Zardari will be exposed to legal challenges on his eligibility as a candidate for the presidency.
According to Pakistani law, presidential candidates are not permitted to have had any prior convictions.
Some Pakistani lawyers say that because Mr. Zardari failed to appear when he was called before the High Court in Lahore after he was released from jail in 2004, he is considered an absconder, a status that is enough, they say, to disqualify him as a presidential candidate.
But that issue remains unresolved, and Mr. Babar, the presidential spokesman, said Mr. Zardari had no convictions.
Lawyers also contend that a 2003 money-laundering conviction of Mr. Zardari by a Swiss magistrate, which Mr. Zardari and Ms. Bhutto appealed, was enough to disqualify him.
Once the Supreme Court rules on the amnesty, lawyers will file petitions in “a matter of days” to challenge Mr. Zardari’s eligibility as a presidential candidate, said Salman Akram Raja, a lawyer who has argued against the validity of the amnesty.
In the case against amnesty, he represents Mubashir Hassan, the leader of a breakaway faction of Mr. Zardari’s Pakistan Peoples Party and a staunch opponent of the president.
Court Examines Pakistan Leader’s Offshore Riches
By JANE PERLEZ and SALMAN MASOOD
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Indignant Supreme Court judges on Tuesday demanded to know why $60 million in the suspect gains of President Asif Ali Zardari had been given back to offshore companies in his name rather than returned to the national treasury, where they said it rightfully belonged.
The barrage of questions directed at flustered anticorruption officials was the latest round of embarrassment for Mr. Zardari. He is fighting for his political life as the court hears arguments about the legality of an amnesty decree that was devised in 2007 with the help of the United States and Britain as part of a deal to engineer the comeback of Mr. Zardari’s wife, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, after years in exile.
The decree, which dismissed past corruption allegations, is likely to be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the coming days. Such a ruling would further weaken Mr. Zardari, Washington’s chief civilian partner in Pakistan, and perhaps set the stage for his eventual downfall, legal experts and politicians say.
Mr. Zardari was a primary beneficiary of the amnesty decree, and though he enjoys immunity from prosecution as president, opponents are planning recourse through the courts to overcome that immunity, lawyers said.
Mr. Zardari became president eight months after his wife was assassinated in December 2007. He had served 11 years in jail on charges of corruption and murder that he and his lawyers have always insisted were politically motivated.
Mr. Zardari’s presidential spokesman, Farhatullah Babar, this week reiterated the position that the corruption charges were unfounded. Mr. Zardari and his lawyers say he was never convicted. But whether or not he was convicted remains in question because he did not turn up at a past court hearing, and the issue may yet become central to his future in the presidency, legal experts said.
The hearings that began last week on the amnesty decree, known as the National Reconciliation Order, have served to expose Mr. Zardari all over again as a “man widely perceived as corrupt,” the leading newspaper, Dawn, said in an editorial.
In one document presented to the court by the National Accountability Bureau, the government office that oversees corruption cases, Mr. Zardari was alleged to hold $1.5 billion in assets, including land and overseas bank accounts.
Mr. Babar, the presidential spokesman, described the document as wildly inaccurate.
The $60 million that the judges zeroed in on Tuesday represented money that the bureau said in 2003 documents had been placed in a Swiss bank account by Mr. Zardari and Ms. Bhutto.
An official of the bureau told the court on Tuesday that $13 million represented illegal commissions Mr. Zardari received from two Swiss companies, Cotecna and Société Générale de Surveillance, after they were awarded a contract for preshipment inspections for imports to Pakistan.
The remaining $47 million, the official contended, represented illegal commissions for other contracts awarded to foreign companies when Mr. Zardari was a cabinet minister during Ms. Bhutto’s time as prime minister.
The $60 million was frozen in Switzerland while court cases were brought against Mr. Zardari and Ms. Bhutto in the early days of the government of President Pervez Musharraf. The money was apparently returned to offshore bank accounts in Mr. Zardari’s name after the amnesty decree was imposed by President Musharraf in November 2007.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on Tuesday repeatedly asked who had authorized the money’s return to the accounts. The officials from the accountability bureau, now considered a powerless entity that answers to the current government, had no answers.
Chief Justice Chaudhry ordered the former attorney general under Mr. Musharraf, Malik Muhammad Qayyum, to appear before the court. Mr. Qayyum did not have a direct answer to that question either, but he did say he had acted on the authority of Mr. Musharraf to have the cases against Mr. Zardari withdrawn.
Mr. Zardari is struggling to maintain his authority under pressure from the military and a vocal section of the news media. The Pakistani Army in effect accused him of attacking its interests after he supported a Washington aid package that included provisions calling for greater civilian control over the military.
Afraid of becoming the target of a terrorist attack, the unpopular Mr. Zardari rarely leaves the presidential building, where he has remained for much of the last 10 days as the Supreme Court has whittled away at his authority.
Mr. Zardari has been banking on presidential immunity to save his position. But lawyers fighting the legality of the amnesty decree say that once the decree is declared null and void, Mr. Zardari will be exposed to legal challenges on his eligibility as a candidate for the presidency.
According to Pakistani law, presidential candidates are not permitted to have had any prior convictions.
Some Pakistani lawyers say that because Mr. Zardari failed to appear when he was called before the High Court in Lahore after he was released from jail in 2004, he is considered an absconder, a status that is enough, they say, to disqualify him as a presidential candidate.
But that issue remains unresolved, and Mr. Babar, the presidential spokesman, said Mr. Zardari had no convictions.
Lawyers also contend that a 2003 money-laundering conviction of Mr. Zardari by a Swiss magistrate, which Mr. Zardari and Ms. Bhutto appealed, was enough to disqualify him.
Once the Supreme Court rules on the amnesty, lawyers will file petitions in “a matter of days” to challenge Mr. Zardari’s eligibility as a presidential candidate, said Salman Akram Raja, a lawyer who has argued against the validity of the amnesty.
In the case against amnesty, he represents Mubashir Hassan, the leader of a breakaway faction of Mr. Zardari’s Pakistan Peoples Party and a staunch opponent of the president.
sonicboom
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2009
- Messages
- 704
- Reaction score
- 2
Q+A-Pakistan amnesty ruling raises political temperature
Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:52pm
Michael Georgy
ISLAMABAD, Dec 16 (Reuters) - Pakistan's top court ruled on Wednesday against an amnesty decree that protected President Asif Ali Zardari and some aides from graft charges, further damaging a deeply unpopular leader seen as pro-American.
Here are some questions and answers on the political implications of the ruling in Pakistan and the region.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ZARDARI?
Zardari is safe from prosecution because of presidential immunity. But legal experts say his legitimacy for the presidency could be challenged by those who see his 2008 election as president as invalid.
These issues are bound to take a great deal of time to resolve and give him room to try to make political alliances.
No matter what the outcome, the rejection of the amnesty decree issued by former president Pervez Musharraf in 2007 will further weaken Zardari, whose image has long been tarnished by allegedly shady deals in the 1990s. He also faced murder charges. Zardari was never convicted and denied wrongdoing but spent 11 years in jail. Now he is deeply unpopular and his government is perceived as weak in the face of a Taliban insurgency and a struggling economy.
Zardari is aware of his precarious position. He has taken steps to try and pacify opponents who want him to relinquish some of his powers inherited from Musharraf, who became increasingly autocratic before resigning. They include the right to dismiss governments and appoint chiefs of the armed forces.
In November, Zardari handed over authority over Pakistan's nuclear command structure to the prime minister. The move did not change policy because Pakistan's powerful military is firmly in control of the nuclear weapons. But it suggested Zardari realised he had no choice but to appease critics.
WHAT IS THE BIG PICTURE?
The court ruling has far wider implications than threatening Zardari's bumpy political career. Political turmoil in Pakistan makes Washington nervous. President Barack Obama is banking on Pakistan to help him stablise Afghanistan where a Taliban insurgency has dragged on for eight years.
There is less chance of that happening if Pakistan is unstable. Zardari's interior and defence ministers are among those on a list of 8,000 politicians and bureaucrats that would have been protected under the amnesty. Now they may be casualties if they end up in court.
Zardari's downfall would not mean his party loses power - it could put up a new candidate for president. His main rival, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, hopes to win the next parliamentary election, due by 2013, although turmoil might present him with a chance to force early polls.
Widely respected army chief General Ashfaq Kayani has won the respect of Washington. He could be a useful ally, as long as the Americans don't try to push their weight around too much with an army that doesn't take kindly to outside pressure.
Kayani is seen as a professional soldier who has vowed to keep the army out of politics in a country ruled by the military for more than half of its 62-year history. But like other military leaders, he has made it clear that the United States -- whose drone aircraft are hitting suspected militant hideouts on Pakistani soil and causing resentment -- will not dictate his army's military policies.
The United States wants Pakistan to root out Taliban and al Qaeda militants crossing the border to attack Western forces in Afghanistan. But Pakistan sees the Afghan Taliban as leverage against Indian influence in its western neighbour. The bottom line is the military, which has been described as a state within a state, is in charge, and is used to making decisions on its own.
HOW WILL THE TALIBAN REACT?
The militants can be expected to capitalise on political uncertainty and step up bomb attacks. The Taliban are becoming more ambitious, with brazen operations like a recent suicide attack at a mosque near Pakistan's military headquarters, challenging the belief that the army is invincible. Political turmoil would fit in with their plans to spread chaos and fear. (For more Reuters coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan, see: here) (Editing by Robert Birsel)
Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:52pm
Michael Georgy
ISLAMABAD, Dec 16 (Reuters) - Pakistan's top court ruled on Wednesday against an amnesty decree that protected President Asif Ali Zardari and some aides from graft charges, further damaging a deeply unpopular leader seen as pro-American.
Here are some questions and answers on the political implications of the ruling in Pakistan and the region.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ZARDARI?
Zardari is safe from prosecution because of presidential immunity. But legal experts say his legitimacy for the presidency could be challenged by those who see his 2008 election as president as invalid.
These issues are bound to take a great deal of time to resolve and give him room to try to make political alliances.
No matter what the outcome, the rejection of the amnesty decree issued by former president Pervez Musharraf in 2007 will further weaken Zardari, whose image has long been tarnished by allegedly shady deals in the 1990s. He also faced murder charges. Zardari was never convicted and denied wrongdoing but spent 11 years in jail. Now he is deeply unpopular and his government is perceived as weak in the face of a Taliban insurgency and a struggling economy.
Zardari is aware of his precarious position. He has taken steps to try and pacify opponents who want him to relinquish some of his powers inherited from Musharraf, who became increasingly autocratic before resigning. They include the right to dismiss governments and appoint chiefs of the armed forces.
In November, Zardari handed over authority over Pakistan's nuclear command structure to the prime minister. The move did not change policy because Pakistan's powerful military is firmly in control of the nuclear weapons. But it suggested Zardari realised he had no choice but to appease critics.
WHAT IS THE BIG PICTURE?
The court ruling has far wider implications than threatening Zardari's bumpy political career. Political turmoil in Pakistan makes Washington nervous. President Barack Obama is banking on Pakistan to help him stablise Afghanistan where a Taliban insurgency has dragged on for eight years.
There is less chance of that happening if Pakistan is unstable. Zardari's interior and defence ministers are among those on a list of 8,000 politicians and bureaucrats that would have been protected under the amnesty. Now they may be casualties if they end up in court.
Zardari's downfall would not mean his party loses power - it could put up a new candidate for president. His main rival, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, hopes to win the next parliamentary election, due by 2013, although turmoil might present him with a chance to force early polls.
Widely respected army chief General Ashfaq Kayani has won the respect of Washington. He could be a useful ally, as long as the Americans don't try to push their weight around too much with an army that doesn't take kindly to outside pressure.
Kayani is seen as a professional soldier who has vowed to keep the army out of politics in a country ruled by the military for more than half of its 62-year history. But like other military leaders, he has made it clear that the United States -- whose drone aircraft are hitting suspected militant hideouts on Pakistani soil and causing resentment -- will not dictate his army's military policies.
The United States wants Pakistan to root out Taliban and al Qaeda militants crossing the border to attack Western forces in Afghanistan. But Pakistan sees the Afghan Taliban as leverage against Indian influence in its western neighbour. The bottom line is the military, which has been described as a state within a state, is in charge, and is used to making decisions on its own.
HOW WILL THE TALIBAN REACT?
The militants can be expected to capitalise on political uncertainty and step up bomb attacks. The Taliban are becoming more ambitious, with brazen operations like a recent suicide attack at a mosque near Pakistan's military headquarters, challenging the belief that the army is invincible. Political turmoil would fit in with their plans to spread chaos and fear. (For more Reuters coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan, see: here) (Editing by Robert Birsel)
Last edited:
Awesome
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,023
- Reaction score
- 5
I think the court can carry on proceedings against the President without sentencing him jail time but ordering him to return the money from this n that account.
He would obviously refuse. There there will be a lot of drama. The trick would be to make it unbearable for the PPP to stand by the President indefinitely.
Right now PPP is standing with him out of a marriage of convenience. When we start arresting people, then Zardari's house of cards would fall.
He would obviously refuse. There there will be a lot of drama. The trick would be to make it unbearable for the PPP to stand by the President indefinitely.
Right now PPP is standing with him out of a marriage of convenience. When we start arresting people, then Zardari's house of cards would fall.
Similar threads
