Search results

I hope that happens soon. IK should throw him out of the party.

Corruption is a criminal offence. Corruption will be punishable even if discovered 100 years after the fact. That's the law. Some offences to have a time limit but corruption isn't among those. The Supreme Court cannot disqualify someone for corruption--only for dishonesty. The Iqama itself...

Under that argument you are directly questioning the integrity of the judges which is unacceptable. The judges wrote in their judgment that they wouldn't let outside noise affect them. It doesn't matter what they found in the end. It proved Nawaz Sharif was dishonest. It feels anti-climatic...

The precedent set by the Court in this ruling was that the act of dishonesty must have been committed under "solemn affirmation." Unless that has happened somewhere, IK is safe. There are other clauses in 62/63 which could be explored but are unlikely to stand in court.

That means the ECP isn't working like it should. However, they couldn't have DQ Nawaz in 2013 because they did not have the necessary information back then. Shehbaz Sharif has nothing that shows he is dishonest and won't be DQ under 62/63. He can be disqualified for being convicted of a serious...

The government no longer has the power to change judges. Nawaz cannot do anything now. He's a goner.

Zardari's Iqama is fake. Besides, he's not an MNA and the president (when he was) does not need to be Sadiq or Ameen under the Constitution. He probably knew he was a corrupt liar and didn't take the risk of being DQ under 62/63? :p

That is one reason the government needs to abolish the wadera system. It's time for PTI to focus their energy in Court into this. This will have a larger impact that removing Nawaz Sharif from office.

He's never said they were wrong and there is nothing against criticizing a decision once made. However, the lawyers were stupid because they made legal blunders at every step which led them to this.

Imran Khan won't be disqualified for 62/63. The precedent set by the Court is that you cannot be held liable for dishonesty in your daily activities. The dishonesty must have happened under solemn affirmation, such as under oath to speak the truth or a form that has a signature. JKT should be...

He was disqualified for lying on a form under solemn affirmation which makes him dishonest. That was the reasoning of the Court and not even Nawaz is saying there was an error of law. The lawyers messed up when they didn't say this was an "innocent mistake." Since they accepted this was...

This is the Parliament's own doing. The could have amended the Constitution when they had their chance. There has been no error of process or law in this disqualification. The main accountability process will start now: when Nawaz stands trial for criminal offences.

Thanks for this compilation. The arguments in the video are mostly about whether these "experts" agree with the law (Sadiq/Ameen in 62/63) or not and whether or not they think the judgment was "wise." There was no error of law. Even the review is being considered on the grounds that the petition...

If PTI can't win Punjab, they won't form the next government. Simple. Can they win Punjab? Maybe. But they need people on the ground spreading the message of Insaaf and what has been achieved so far. They need educate people that there's more to governance than good roads and better sewage systems.

It's unfortunate to see some have resorted to personal attacks against the private lives of individuals against which they can do nothing. In fact, allegations of zina can be prosecuted on the grounds of slander.

Wrong again. Neither is more powerful than the other. Each has separate powers which do not overlap with each other. The legislature makes the laws. The judiciary interprets those laws and makes sure the executive follows them. We must remember that the Supreme Court's decision wasn't against...

There is no way to win a review petition: there was no error of law. It's only for public consumption. Or maybe a sign of desperation.

There is a chance for that to happen. It was 90K vs 50K in 2013.

The only Court that will be able to decide whether or not a person has "abstained" from major sins is a Sharia Court. According to Islamic principles and jurisprudence, to convict someone of zina, there need to be at least four honest witnesses who have seen the actual act of penetration--the...

If you think we were going through a democratic process in the last 8 years you are mistaken. There was more democracy during Musharraf's rule where the local bodies were actually empowered. These days the civilian dictators want all power for themselves. If we keep hoping the democratic process...