SC Rules in favor of Musharraf: Allowed to contest elections as Army Chief

[F.O.X]

Musharraf Wins a Round in Court

Pakistan's Supreme Court ruled Friday that General Pervez Musharraf can run for another five-year term as president, dismissing three legal challenges brought by opposition parties. The six-to-three decision in favor of the military leader was met with a stunned silence that seemed to suck the air out of the packed courtroom, before a massive chorus of "shame" echoed through the building's marble halls.
Presiding Judge Rana Bhagwandas's announcement that the petitions were "non-maintainable" means that Musharraf will be a candidate on October 6 when the legislature elects a president, despite his remaining in command of the army. (The constitutionality of his continuing to hold both positions had been the basis of the legal challenges to his running for a second term.) Lawyers who only two months ago had been celebrating the Supreme Court justices for standing up to Musharraf by reversing his dismissal of the popular and independent Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry — who did not preside in this case — denounced the ruling as "despicable."

"This was not an independent decision," says Shaukat Siddiqi, a high court lawyer. "The Supreme Court has maintained the legitimacy of the dictatorship."

Outside the Supreme Court building hundreds of protestors, flanked by just as many riot police, denounced Musharraf and the ruling. Members of one of Pakistan's religious parties hoisted a coffin on their shoulders emblazoned with the word JUSTICE and SUPREME COURT. "This coffin is a symbol of the death of the Supreme Court," explains Khalid Abbasi, a telecoms engineer from Islamabad. "Justice has died in Pakistan today."

But not all were dismayed by the decision. Some lawyers at the court expressed relief, explaining that while a decision against Musharraf may have upheld the integrity of the constitution, the consequences for the country could have been devastating. No one knows what Musharraf would have done had the court ruled against him, but rumors were rife that he would declare martial law, suspending basic rights and civilian institutions. "In view of the total political atmosphere in the country, the ruling is good," says Sheikh Zamir Hussain, a High Court Lawyer from nearby Rawalpindi. "A ruling against Musharraf would have lead to chaos, and maybe martial law." He took solace in the fact that Musharraf promised last week that once reelected president, he would give up command of the military.

Others see the ruling as a long-term injury to Pakistan's democracy. "What this has done is set a precedent," says lawyer and talk-show host Ayesha Tammy Haq. "It means that from now on we can always have a military leader running for the office of president." Pakistan has, in fact, been ruled by successive military governments for most of the past 60 years. Pakistan's black-suited lawyers, united by a demand for rule of law, have lead a national campaign for the restoration of democracy that has proved far stronger than any opposition party. "The political parties have fractured over mud-slinging and power games," says 22-year-old university student Alia Amir Ali, outside the Supreme Court. "The only people left with any credibility are the lawyers. They are the only ones taking a stand, and they will win in the end." The court decision was a setback, she says, but she has not lost hope.

Munir Malik, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, said that the court decision was "academic." On Thursday, a group of lawyers lead by Malik submitted nomination papers for their own presidential candidate, former Supreme Court Justice Wajihudin Ahmed. With less than nine days to campaign and a non-existent budget, Ahmed has no chance of actually winning the election, but that is beside the point. Malik intends to bring a new case to the Supreme Court next week charging that Musharraf's candidacy, proscribed by the constitution because he already holds military office, infringes on Ahemd's right to a fair election. "We will come back for a second round to argue on his behalf that the election is fraudulent," says Malik. "This is but one battle. We will still win the war."
Musharraf Wins a Round in Court - TIME


Regards
Wilco

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Malik intends to bring a new case to the Supreme Court next week charging that Musharraf's candidacy, proscribed by the constitution because he already holds military office, infringes on Ahemd's right to a fair election. "We will come back for a second round to argue on his behalf that the election is fraudulent," says Malik. "This is but one battle. We will still win the war."

That last part, I think, is what that "chatter" was about. So we shall see who "wins the war".

 

[Spring Onion]

Some chatter I have been hearing on other blogs -

The SC only ruled on the "maintainability of the petitions", rather than the "qualifications" of Mushy to run for office, which means that his election as President can still be challenged after the elections. At that point the SC could rule on whether he should be disqualified because of the two year rule, for example, and without the COAS post, there will be nothing Musharaf can do about it.


Any one with more insight into this?

Agno that rule had also been changed by 17th amenment by the same politicians who are now trying to lure the SC to clean the mess they had created.
the relevent claus of article 63 does not apply to the disqualification term for the president while the same applies on parliamentarians.
Lets see after leaving the post of COAS what lies ahead for Musharraf but for the time being being even resignatgions by opposition nor disolution of any provinical assembly can stop him from contesting election.

 

[niaz]

My comment; at the risk of nth repetition; remains that the same people who hail Supreme Court when it decides against the government, deride the Supreme Court Judges when the decision goes against them. This includes the lawyers among others. Some lawyers such as Ali Ahmad Kurd even throw ink on the lawyers arguing for the government. Are these the people who are guardians of law in Pakistan?? What kind of example these lawyers are setting by breaking the law themselves?? If we accept only those decisions that are in our favour, what is the point of going to the court at all??

Our society has lost direction. We don't know what law abiding means. Biggest culprit in this is the media. It is the media which has made Lal Masjid criminals into heroes. Most of the reporters spin the news. For examples, this morning, on ARY as well as Geo, there was condemnation of the police excesses on the media and the protesting lawyers. The fact that both Durrani and Sattar were injured was only mentioned in passing. No reporter clarified that these govt ministers were beaten up by the protesting lawyers!!

Dont know how this malaise of the society can be cured or will it ever be cured. This however is most disturbing.

 

[bhangra12345]

I am not going to deride the SC for giving the judgement. All its judges signed according to "Provisional Constitutional Order(PCO)" the order giving Mushy the right to contest. During that 5 of your SC's judges resigned(one of them is contesting against Mushy), which is actually much better than what our SC did during our emergency.

I am actually dissappointed(no deridement) by this judgement. This was one chance where the SC could have become the "torch bearer of democracy" in Pakistan. It did not take up this lofty ideal and maintained independence at the previous level. Speaking purely legally, I felt Mushy always had a chance to win due to that PCO and these judges went according to the letter but not the spirit.

 

[Always Neutral]

Pakistan’s sea of troubles never ceases to amaze. The average Pakistani one meets either in Delhi, Lahore or Paris is so articulate, level-headed, moderate, intelligent, accomplished, competent, humorous and self-mocking. Therefore, it is a complete mystery why a 60-year-old republic with such a bright and brilliant citizenry has not managed, as far as nationhood is concerned, to get even the basics right. Is Pakistan a democracy or a dictatorship? Is it a quasi-democracy or quasi-dictatorship? Is it a military or civilian dictatorship? Or, is it all of the above?

When Pakistan is in distress, there is a feeling of intense schadenfreude in India. Turmoil in Pakistan makes us feel smug, vindicated and superior: Look what happens to people who make religion the basis of their identity. This attitude is at once silly and counterproductive. Instability in Pakistan is a grave threat to India.

I saw this in the Indian Press and feel its some what true.

 

[Awesome]

I am not going to deride the SC for giving the judgement. All its judges signed according to "Provisional Constitutional Order(PCO)" the order giving Mushy the right to contest. During that 5 of your SC's judges resigned(one of them is contesting against Mushy), which is actually much better than what our SC did during our emergency.

I am actually dissappointed(no deridement) by this judgement. This was one chance where the SC could have become the "torch bearer of democracy" in Pakistan. It did not take up this lofty ideal and maintained independence at the previous level. Speaking purely legally, I felt Mushy always had a chance to win due to that PCO and these judges went according to the letter but not the spirit.

It wasn't just the SC which gave it's approval the last time. The opposition supported musharraf and he got that amendment in by 2/3rd majority. The Supreme Court DOESN'T make the laws. It implements them. The laws are all made by the parliament.

 

[Awesome]

Pakistan’s sea of troubles never ceases to amaze. The average Pakistani one meets either in Delhi, Lahore or Paris is so articulate, level-headed, moderate, intelligent, accomplished, competent, humorous and self-mocking. Therefore, it is a complete mystery why a 60-year-old republic with such a bright and brilliant citizenry has not managed, as far as nationhood is concerned, to get even the basics right. Is Pakistan a democracy or a dictatorship? Is it a quasi-democracy or quasi-dictatorship? Is it a military or civilian dictatorship? Or, is it all of the above?

When Pakistan is in distress, there is a feeling of intense schadenfreude in India. Turmoil in Pakistan makes us feel smug, vindicated and superior: Look what happens to people who make religion the basis of their identity. This attitude is at once silly and counterproductive. Instability in Pakistan is a grave threat to India.

I saw this in the Indian Press and feel its some what true.

link?

Indians are quick to vindicate themselves by falsely attaching religion to our voes. The current situation has nothing to do with religion.

The religious rebellion against Musharraf lost. The secular rebellion made a dent. Indians are desperate to prove their Akhand Bharat theory correct and hence any trouble in Pakistan is attributed to religion.

 

[Always Neutral]

outlookindia.com

When Pakistan is in distress, there is a feeling of intense schadenfreude in India. Turmoil in Pakistan makes us feel smug, vindicated and superior: Look what happens to people who make religion the basis of their identity. This attitude is at once silly and counterproductive. Instability in Pakistan is a grave threat to India.

I am not sure how you felt about the article but I like what he said here in these last few lines. I re-produce them and I hope all Pakistani haters as well Indian Haters introspect on it. An unstable India or Pakistan will be bad for both countries. At the same time both Indians and Pakistanis must move away from political sychophancy for eg Churchill saved are bacon in WWII but we rarely hear about his son becoming the PM of UK.

 

[Always Neutral]

Dear Asim,

Most of us westerners base our knowledge on the electronic media as well as reading between the lines but it confuses us to know that Mrs BB and Mr N Sharif may become PM's again ( if as all say they are corrupt). Why is the Gen M not exposing them ? I saw Mr BB's interview on CNN yesterday and she painted such a grim picture of Pakistan. Equally bleak picture was painted by Nawaz Sharif in his interviews to an Indian Channel about Kargil etc.

So if the world compares the brilliant Pakistani Doctor or say someone like fair like Keys who is Pakistani born with the picture painted by your Ex PM's and hence we have an understanding problem on why supposed to be corrupt people are deported and not tried in a court of law.

 

[bhangra12345]

It wasn't just the SC which gave it's approval the last time. The opposition supported musharraf and he got that amendment in by 2/3rd majority. The Supreme Court DOESN'T make the laws. It implements them. The laws are all made by the parliament.

and that is the reason why 5 of the judges of SC resigned instead of okaying PCO? right...

The SC doesnt make the laws, but it also has the right to say whether a new law made is constitutional or not- you forget this right of the SC. An SC cannot and should not allow a law to be passed saying some xyz becomes the PM for life, yzx becomes the finance minister for life and their children and only children take up the posts when they die. The SC is the bulwark against making these stupid laws even if the party in power has 100% majority.

You are diminishing the right and the power which an SC holds in a normal parliamentary democracy.

 

[Awesome]

and that is the reason why 5 of the judges of SC resigned instead of okaying PCO? right...

The SC doesnt make the laws, but it also has the right to say whether a new law made is constitutional or not- you forget this right of the SC. An SC cannot and should not allow a law to be passed saying some xyz becomes the PM for life, yzx becomes the finance minister for life and their children and only children take up the posts when they die. The SC is the bulwark against making these stupid laws even if the party in power has 100% majority.

You are diminishing the right and the power which an SC holds in a normal parliamentary democracy.

The constitution can be amended as well with a large 2/3rd majority. The only judge of prominence I know is of is Wajihuddin Ahmed who resigned in protest and he's from the MMA. Also they all I believe resigned in 1999. They all belonged to Wajihuddin Ahmed's click. He sort of took them along.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You are diminishing the right and the power which an SC holds in a normal parliamentary democracy.

To reiterate Asim's point - the SC is only supposed to adjudicate based on an "interpretation" of the constitution, not come up with a wish list of what it wishes the constitution should be like. While the SC can strike down a "law"" as being unconstitutional, it cannot strike down a "constitutional amendment" passed with a two thirds majority, since a constitutional amendment becomes "part" of the constitution.