Pakistan Army commits treason in Presidents Office

[xyxmt]

A new ISPR song is the need to time.
Our generals are showing their true colors and capacity, these village kids who grew up watching chaudhry's son rape their women and take their land by force somehow passed F.Sc. and joined Pakistan Army and decided to do to Pakistan what Chaudhry and his family did to their family. this is the only way of life they know growing up, who fcuked who

 

[Jango]

Gandhi and Nehru were giants, Bacha Khan was their little subordinate in the far flung frontier backwaters who didn't even capture the support of the majority of his fellow pushtun, leave alone wider Pakistani populace and leave further alone a united India.

IK may not be a giant in the wider historical context, but he's the biggest political figure to come out of the lands that constitute the modern day Pakistan since Jinnah.

I would put Bhutto (as much as I hate the guy) into that bracket.

He mesmerized a large part of the population, and was the heart beat of millions.

 

[SaadH]

I would put Bhutto (as much as I hate the guy) into that bracket.

He mesmerized a large part of the population, and was the heart beat of millions.

Bhutto isn't even fit enough to tie IK's shoes. He was popular in rural Sindh and parts of Punjab, the latter courtesy Yahya Khan and establishment's generosity. He was completely eclipsed by Mujeeb who Pakistanis voted for in twice the numbers as Bhutto.

Whereas IK consistently expanded his popularity to all parts of Pakistan.

 

[Paji]

​

​

According to Article 75: President's assent to Bills​

1. When a Bill is presented to the President for assent, the President shall, within 36[ten] days,-

a. assent to the Bill; or

b. in the case of a Bill other than a Money Bill, return the Bill to the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) with a message requesting that the Bill or any specified provision thereof, be reconsidered and that any amendment specified in the message be considered.

So, mere absence of assent doesn't imply that the President has sent the Bill back to Parliament. The President must actually have sent the Bill back with a message requesting that the Bill be reconsidered . A constitutional crisis has been created because it seems neither of the two steps required were taken . Clearly either the President or someone in his staff is responsible for that. If the President wrote and signed a message to Parliament asking them to reconsider the Bill and the staff did not forward that message, then he was truly betrayed and the staff should be prosecuted. However, if he never wrote a message to Parliament returning the Bill, this is an afterthought and he is responsible for creating the crisis by not having done his job.

For those who would like a summarised and concise reason why it cannot be made law, read this breakdown (seems like it will help clarify for many):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1693222462455009523

According to this tweet, if the President wants to object to the Bills, he can still do so even now under Article 254. Why isn't he writing a message to Parliament saying he objects to the Bills and is returning them for reconsideration?

 

[Jango]

​

​

According to Article 75: President's assent to Bills​

1. When a Bill is presented to the President for assent, the President shall, within 36[ten] days,-

a. assent to the Bill; or

b. in the case of a Bill other than a Money Bill, return the Bill to the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) with a message requesting that the Bill or any specified provision thereof, be reconsidered and that any amendment specified in the message be considered.

So, mere absence of assent doesn't imply that the President has sent the Bill back to Parliament. The President must actually have sent the Bill back with a message requesting that the Bill be reconsidered . A constitutional crisis has been created because it seems neither of the two steps required were taken . Clearly either the President or someone in his staff is responsible for that. If the President wrote and signed a message to Parliament asking them to reconsider the Bill and the staff did not forward that message, then he was truly betrayed and the staff should be prosecuted. However, if he never wrote a message to Parliament returning the Bill, this is an afterthought and he is responsible for creating the crisis by not having done his job.

So he correctly returned 13 bills, but for these two he suddenly forgot the correct procedure and did not return them?

According to this tweet, if the President wants to object to the Bills, he can still do so even now under Article 254. Why isn't he writing a message to Parliament saying he objects to the Bills and is returning them for reconsideration?

Because the parliament does not exist right now.

 

[Paji]

So he correctly returned 13 bills, but for these two he suddenly forgot the correct procedure and did not return them?

So it seems. If he followed the correct procedure, then the letter he wrote to Parliament, that his staff allegedly supressed, must exist and should be made public.

Because the parliament does not exist right now.

Only the lower house is dissolved. The Senate still exists and the joint Parliament can be called after elections. And does Parliament exist for the purpose of returning 13 of the Bills but not just these two ?

 

[Jango]

So it seems. If he followed the correct procedure, then the letter he wrote to Parliament, that his staff allegedly supressed, must exist and should be made public.

There is no letter that he has to write to the parliament. What letter are you referring to?

Only the lower house is dissolved. The Senate still exists and the joint Parliament can be called after elections. And does Parliament exist for the purpose of returning 13 of the Bills but not just these two ?

The bill originated from the NA, and that is where it goes.

For the other 13 bills, once those bills are not signed by the president, they cease to exist and are legally nothing. The bills have lapsed. The new assembly has to start the whole procedure afresh.

Once an assembly dissolves, all legislation which has not been made a law expires.

 

[Abdul Rehman Majeed]

The first action of the new NA should be to impeach this incompetent President.

 

[Sinnerman108]

A new ISPR song is the need to time.
Our generals are showing their true colors and capacity, these village kids who grew up watching chaudhry's son rape their women and take their land by force somehow passed F.Sc. and joined Pakistan Army and decided to do to Pakistan what Chaudhry and his family did to their family. this is the only way of life they know growing up, who fcuked who

These village kids, who barely pass FA;
can't wear their underwear right,
get mesmerized by the angrezi culture at kakul ...

and believe they are Gods .... just when Gora saab says ... teri angrezi theek hai.

 

[Paji]

There is no letter that he has to write to the parliament. What letter are you referring to?

Read Article 75 (1)(b). If the President doesn't assent, he is required to send a message to Parliament requesting them to reconsider the Bill. Formal official business is still carried out through official letters, not verbally or through WhatsApp etc. So, I am assuming that if the President didn't want to give his assent, he must have written a message with his objections. The Constitution does not allow him to just sit on a Bill. The President claims his staff did not obey his instructions, but it is his responsibility to at least issue the instructions formally. The staff can prevent the President's message from reaching Parliament only if he wrote that message in the first place. Since the President is making serious allegations, the onus of proving that he wrote a message with his objections to Parliament is on him.

President returns 13 bills unsigned | The Express Tribune

Alvi gives his seal of approval to PEMRA Amendment Bill

tribune.com.pk

The 13 bills were returned with written objections. They did not lapse automatically. If the President objected to the two other two bills, why didn't he object in writing like for the other 13 ?

 

[POPEYE-Sailor]

HAN BHAI KAISA DIA ?
NAHI DIA ACHA ?
HEIN ? HEIN ?

RIP PAKISTAN FK CIVIL Obedience fk this lumber no1 pride.

#Masti Time😂 | Public Awareness | Public Awareness · Original audio

272K views, 9.1K likes, 236 comments, 5.4K shares, Facebook Reels from Public Awareness: #Masti Time😂. Public Awareness · Original audio

www.facebook.com

 

[Jango]

Read Article 75 (1)(b). If the President doesn't assent, he is required to send a message to Parliament requesting them to reconsider the Bill. Formal official business is still carried out through official letters, not verbally or through WhatsApp etc. So, I am assuming that if the President didn't want to give his assent, he must have written a message with his objections. The Constitution does not allow him to just sit on a Bill. The President claims his staff did not obey his instructions, but it is his responsibility to at least issue the instructions formally. The staff can prevent the President's message from reaching Parliament only if he wrote that message in the first place. Since the President is making serious allegations, the onus of proving that he wrote a message with his objections to Parliament is on him.

President returns 13 bills unsigned | The Express Tribune

Alvi gives his seal of approval to PEMRA Amendment Bill

tribune.com.pk

The 13 bills were returned with written objections. They did not lapse automatically. If the President objected to the two other two bills, why didn't he object in writing like for the other 13 ?

Oh you are refering to this clause.

He can simply say that he believes the bill in it's current form to be against democracy or any other BS reason. He does not have to justify his reasoning. He can say I do not like this bill and return it. This is how I understand it after listening to various lawyers.

Read the following, perhaps the most eminent lawyer in Pakistan in current times:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1693219263463477756

Also, you are mixing a few different things here.

The culpability of the current govt can be clearly seen in the official gazette notification it put out. It accepted that the president did not sign the bill and returned it, but even then it made it into a law. Read that notification, it is written there that the president did not sign the bill.

Moreover, the govt first tried to say that they made it into a law because the president did not sign the bill. 2 ministers came on TV, the ministry of law put out a press release, and also on Twitter.

Now they realize their blunder and the twitter account is suspended, and all government functionaries are shut about this.

President returns 13 bills unsigned | The Express Tribune

Alvi gives his seal of approval to PEMRA Amendment Bill

tribune.com.pk

The 13 bills were returned with written objections. They did not lapse automatically. If the President objected to the two other two bills, why didn't he object in writing like for the other 13 ?

Where does the article say he gave written objections to each one?

Although yes, that is how it is usually done. But that objection can be anything, or just a single word. That is how someone told me the practice is.

 

[Crimson Blue]

So he correctly returned 13 bills, but for these two he suddenly forgot the correct procedure and did not return them?

Following is a report from an Express News reporter who covers President House. He talked to his connections in Presidency and according to his information, President Alvi did ask his staff to return all 15 bills and did not sign a single one of these. The staff did not tell him that they returned only 13 bills.

When news of his signing 2 controversial bills was aired on Geo T.V, he asked his staff to issue a statement to clarify his stance, but his staff never issued a statement. So eventually President had to issue his point of view on Twitter.

The reporter also describes how passage of this bill into law is described in the official gazette.

 

[Jango]

Following is a report from an Express News reporter who covers President House. He talked to his connections in Presidency and according to his information, President Alvi did ask his staff to return all 15 bills and did not sign a single one of these. The staff did not tell him that they returned only 13 bills.

When news of his signing 2 controversial bills was aired on Geo T.V, he asked his staff to issue a statement to clarify his stance, but his staff never issued a statement. So eventually President had to issue his point of view on Twitter.

We have the MS running the President house, such are the affairs of our country.

And, really funny to see the estab and PDM shill journalists, especially Azaz Syed and Geo.

First they quoted their exclusive source saying that the President did indeed sign the bills, and that this is just hogwash.

Then when the govt admitted that Alvi did not indeed sign the bills, they had to backtrack and then deleted their own posts

An exhibit below:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1693330555084181733

 

[Paji]

Oh you are refering to this clause.

He can simply say that he believes the bill in it's current form to be against democracy or any other BS reason. He does not have to justify his reasoning. He can say I do not like this bill and return it. This is how I understand it after listening to various lawyers.

Read the following, perhaps the most eminent lawyer in Pakistan in current times:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1693219263463477756

Also, you are mixing a few different things here.

The culpability of the current govt can be clearly seen in the official gazette notification it put out. It accepted that the president did not sign the bill and returned it, but even then it made it into a law. Read that notification, it is written there that the president did not sign the bill.

Moreover, the govt first tried to say that they made it into a law because the president did not sign the bill. 2 ministers came on TV, the ministry of law put out a press release, and also on Twitter.

Now they realize their blunder and the twitter account is suspended, and all government functionaries are shut about this.



Where does the article say he gave written objections to each one?

Although yes, that is how it is usually done. But that objection can be anything, or just a single word. That is how someone told me the practice is.

Oh you are refering to this clause.

He can simply say that he believes the bill in it's current form to be against democracy or any other BS reason. He does not have to justify his reasoning. He can say I do not like this bill and return it. This is how I understand it after listening to various lawyers.

Read the following, perhaps the most eminent lawyer in Pakistan in current times:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1693219263463477756

Also, you are mixing a few different things here.

The culpability of the current govt can be clearly seen in the official gazette notification it put out. It accepted that the president did not sign the bill and returned it, but even then it made it into a law. Read that notification, it is written there that the president did not sign the bill.

Moreover, the govt first tried to say that they made it into a law because the president did not sign the bill. 2 ministers came on TV, the ministry of law put out a press release, and also on Twitter.

Now they realize their blunder and the twitter account is suspended, and all government functionaries are shut about this.



Where does the article say he gave written objections to each one?

Although yes, that is how it is usually done. But that objection can be anything, or just a single word. That is how someone told me the practice is.

That was another article from the same source

President returned 13 bills with objections on August 9 | The Express Tribune

Dr Alvi did not write any objections on the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Bill and Official Secrets (Amendment) Bill

tribune.com.pk

Anyway, in official business, any "return" is accompanied by a cover letter which would have sufficed as an objection. Like you said, he could have made up any BS reason. The bottom line is that there is no controversy about 13 bills that could not be passed only because the NA was dissolved before the President returned them. If the same procedure had been followed for the two bills, they would not have become law either.

The question is who is responsible for this. Why would the staff follow his instructions for 13 bills and not only for 2 ? The President must have signed some letter returning each of the 13 bills. All sarkari documemts require a signature to move even from one desk to the one adjacent. Did he also sign letters for the two bills ? If not, why didn't he get suspicious earlier? Surely he is able to write a letter without help from his staff. Only the people involved know the truth. However, if the President followed the proper procedure ( which would have been set up decades ago), some paper trail must exist showing that the staff disobeyed his instructions. He should make this evidence public to put all speculation to rest.