truthseer
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2011
- Messages
- 4,439
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
It is not into my knowledge...
Ex-Con PM Gilani should quit
- Thread starter Guvera
- Start date
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Opinion
Timely interlude
Raoof Hasan
Saturday, May 05, 2012
Notwithstanding the apparent non-partisan approach of the speech, there are a few things in General Kayani’s written address at the Martyrs’ Day Ceremony that stand out by way of their relevance to the fast deteriorating situation in the country. It not only outlines the reasons why we are plunging into an unfathomable pit, it also shows the way to salvage national pride and dignity.
Strictly speaking, the occasion did not warrant this intervention, but the rapid pace at which the country seems to be plunging into chaos and anarchy must be pressing hard on his mind as, indeed, it is on that of every conscientious citizen. Reiterating his faith in democracy, General Kayani said: “We believe in the stability and continuity of the democratic system in Pakistan. Pakistan’s progress, prosperity and uplift are linked with respect for the democratic traditions”. He elaborated: “The constitution of Pakistan has clearly outlined the role and responsibilities of all state institutions. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us that we conduct ourselves in accordance with the parameters as defined so that it would enhance respect and dignity both of our country and ourselves”.
It is towards the end of his speech that he cautioned: “We should never forget that the singular purpose of the democratic system is to work for the welfare, prosperity and self-respect of the people as also to strive for a society that affords equal justice to all. This is the only way to further strengthen national security”.
A telling indictment, indeed, interspersed with meaningful advice! Viewed in the backdrop of a government that has utterly failed in delivering to the people and which has literally abdicated governance at the altar of salvaging the ill-gotten billions of its leaders and their associates, the message is both a timely reminder and a warning: it is a reminder about the existence of a constitution and the need for all state institutions to work within their due limits as prescribed and it is a warning that democracy would not work if it does not provide avenues for the welfare, prosperity and self-respect of the people and ensure equal justice for all. Where does the government stand on the scale as outlined by the COAS? And why is that an army chief has to remind a democratic government about its responsibilities and failures?
It would be interesting to note that, in the past, military commanders have taken over the reins of government for much less than what the incumbent administration has offered repeatedly on a platter. Be it’s intransigence in restoring an independent judiciary, or its dismantling of all state institutions, or its inherent spate of corruption, or its vile and wicked confrontation of the judiciary that has brought the country to the brink of paralysis, or a crude exposition of its self-inflicted persecution complex, there is a vast repertoire of grievances that would have brought down any government in the past. The fact that this government is still there and we have an army chief who is reminding it of its responsibilities rather than ordering the appropriate brigade to march in is a tribute to the sagacity and wisdom that marks the military mind today. This is so in spite of the numerous occasions when the so-called democratic government has tried to put the military and intelligence agencies’ command in the dock, accusing them of running a ‘state within a state’ as also to scuttle their authority and viability by promising organisational and personnel changes in exchange for longevity of its corrupt rule.
After four years in the saddle, the government has virtually exhausted all avenues for initiating a reform of mind and mechanism. It is so deeply stuck in its errant ways that there is no hope for salvation. Practically, it is at war with every institution that is advocating the espousal of priorities that the army chief rightly outlined in his speech. On the other hand, the government appears determined to precipitate conditions leading to embracing political martyrdom so that it would score some precious points to ‘buy’ votes at the next elections as and when they are held.
Mr Gilani’s conviction in the contempt of court proceedings was an opportunity when the government could have initiated the long overdue process of putting things right. This would have not only helped it erase the record of a not-too-impressive past, but may also have created propitious conditions for it to move on and complete its tenure. But, when the prime objective is to safeguard the illicit and fraudulently earned monies by its leaders, no such thing can go beyond the realm of a desirable possibility. So deeply sunk is the government in its own misdeeds, that there is no prospect of retrieval or reform. The likelihood is that it would continue going deeper into the quagmire with an over-riding concern that it may take the country along, too.
It was hoped that better sense would prevail in the face of judicial injunctions and an effort would unfurl to reshape the national course in conformity with the parameters of the rule of law. In the wake of an outright announcement of war with the judiciary and blatant refusal to accept its verdicts now and in the future, what are the options that can still be used to extricate the country out of the mess that it is mired in? This is the context in which the army chief’s timely intervention should be viewed. His words do not reflect a desire to intervene or take over. On the contrary, they are a reminder to the incumbent government of its responsibilities to keep the democratic system afloat which would come about by ensuring the welfare, prosperity and self-respect of the people of Pakistan as also by creating conditions for affording them equal justice. It can’t be that while the ‘prime minister’ would refuse to submit before the dictate of the apex court, it would be expected of the ordinary mortals to continue doing so. In the event they also refuse to accept the judicial edicts, and when the state apparatus has been rendered dysfunctional because of rampant corruption and nepotism, the slide into anarchy would be the only prospect remaining.
The environment is being further vitiated by raising divisive and controversial issues as a lead-up to the next elections. This vicious agenda includes the creation of new provinces drawn along linguistic and sectarian lines and using the state institutions to scuttle possible anti-government agitation.
The NAB chief’s statement that President Zardari had asked him not to open cases against Nawaz Sharif when he took over the charge of the accountability bureau (and, understandably, he did not!) is extremely disturbing in this context. Now that there is a threat by the same Nawaz Sharif of starting a long march against the incumbent government, the interior minister has boasted publicly to file corruption references against the PML-N leadership. Why should corruption be hidden in the first place on whosoever’s behest? Why should the NAB chief toe a line that is not in conformity with the established principles of justice and fair play?
From the ‘president’ to the ‘prime minister’ to the cabinet ‘ministers’ and a vast coterie of servile attendants, it is a bunch of crooks and convicts that rules the country today. What is even more gruesome is that this system, in its present shape and formulation, would continue to throw up people of dubious backgrounds and intentions to crowd the legislatures for an unending fun time. The army chief appears acutely aware of what ails the country. With a government failing in fulfilling all its primary responsibilities and with the prospects of agitation growing, are we headed for another intervention on the lines of what led to the restoration of an independent judiciary? After all, there is Article 190 in the Constitution binding all executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan to act in aid of the Supreme Court. Are we ever going to learn?
The writer is a political analyst. Email: raoofhasan@hotmail.com
Timely interlude
Raoof Hasan
Saturday, May 05, 2012
Notwithstanding the apparent non-partisan approach of the speech, there are a few things in General Kayani’s written address at the Martyrs’ Day Ceremony that stand out by way of their relevance to the fast deteriorating situation in the country. It not only outlines the reasons why we are plunging into an unfathomable pit, it also shows the way to salvage national pride and dignity.
Strictly speaking, the occasion did not warrant this intervention, but the rapid pace at which the country seems to be plunging into chaos and anarchy must be pressing hard on his mind as, indeed, it is on that of every conscientious citizen. Reiterating his faith in democracy, General Kayani said: “We believe in the stability and continuity of the democratic system in Pakistan. Pakistan’s progress, prosperity and uplift are linked with respect for the democratic traditions”. He elaborated: “The constitution of Pakistan has clearly outlined the role and responsibilities of all state institutions. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us that we conduct ourselves in accordance with the parameters as defined so that it would enhance respect and dignity both of our country and ourselves”.
It is towards the end of his speech that he cautioned: “We should never forget that the singular purpose of the democratic system is to work for the welfare, prosperity and self-respect of the people as also to strive for a society that affords equal justice to all. This is the only way to further strengthen national security”.
A telling indictment, indeed, interspersed with meaningful advice! Viewed in the backdrop of a government that has utterly failed in delivering to the people and which has literally abdicated governance at the altar of salvaging the ill-gotten billions of its leaders and their associates, the message is both a timely reminder and a warning: it is a reminder about the existence of a constitution and the need for all state institutions to work within their due limits as prescribed and it is a warning that democracy would not work if it does not provide avenues for the welfare, prosperity and self-respect of the people and ensure equal justice for all. Where does the government stand on the scale as outlined by the COAS? And why is that an army chief has to remind a democratic government about its responsibilities and failures?
It would be interesting to note that, in the past, military commanders have taken over the reins of government for much less than what the incumbent administration has offered repeatedly on a platter. Be it’s intransigence in restoring an independent judiciary, or its dismantling of all state institutions, or its inherent spate of corruption, or its vile and wicked confrontation of the judiciary that has brought the country to the brink of paralysis, or a crude exposition of its self-inflicted persecution complex, there is a vast repertoire of grievances that would have brought down any government in the past. The fact that this government is still there and we have an army chief who is reminding it of its responsibilities rather than ordering the appropriate brigade to march in is a tribute to the sagacity and wisdom that marks the military mind today. This is so in spite of the numerous occasions when the so-called democratic government has tried to put the military and intelligence agencies’ command in the dock, accusing them of running a ‘state within a state’ as also to scuttle their authority and viability by promising organisational and personnel changes in exchange for longevity of its corrupt rule.
After four years in the saddle, the government has virtually exhausted all avenues for initiating a reform of mind and mechanism. It is so deeply stuck in its errant ways that there is no hope for salvation. Practically, it is at war with every institution that is advocating the espousal of priorities that the army chief rightly outlined in his speech. On the other hand, the government appears determined to precipitate conditions leading to embracing political martyrdom so that it would score some precious points to ‘buy’ votes at the next elections as and when they are held.
Mr Gilani’s conviction in the contempt of court proceedings was an opportunity when the government could have initiated the long overdue process of putting things right. This would have not only helped it erase the record of a not-too-impressive past, but may also have created propitious conditions for it to move on and complete its tenure. But, when the prime objective is to safeguard the illicit and fraudulently earned monies by its leaders, no such thing can go beyond the realm of a desirable possibility. So deeply sunk is the government in its own misdeeds, that there is no prospect of retrieval or reform. The likelihood is that it would continue going deeper into the quagmire with an over-riding concern that it may take the country along, too.
It was hoped that better sense would prevail in the face of judicial injunctions and an effort would unfurl to reshape the national course in conformity with the parameters of the rule of law. In the wake of an outright announcement of war with the judiciary and blatant refusal to accept its verdicts now and in the future, what are the options that can still be used to extricate the country out of the mess that it is mired in? This is the context in which the army chief’s timely intervention should be viewed. His words do not reflect a desire to intervene or take over. On the contrary, they are a reminder to the incumbent government of its responsibilities to keep the democratic system afloat which would come about by ensuring the welfare, prosperity and self-respect of the people of Pakistan as also by creating conditions for affording them equal justice. It can’t be that while the ‘prime minister’ would refuse to submit before the dictate of the apex court, it would be expected of the ordinary mortals to continue doing so. In the event they also refuse to accept the judicial edicts, and when the state apparatus has been rendered dysfunctional because of rampant corruption and nepotism, the slide into anarchy would be the only prospect remaining.
The environment is being further vitiated by raising divisive and controversial issues as a lead-up to the next elections. This vicious agenda includes the creation of new provinces drawn along linguistic and sectarian lines and using the state institutions to scuttle possible anti-government agitation.
The NAB chief’s statement that President Zardari had asked him not to open cases against Nawaz Sharif when he took over the charge of the accountability bureau (and, understandably, he did not!) is extremely disturbing in this context. Now that there is a threat by the same Nawaz Sharif of starting a long march against the incumbent government, the interior minister has boasted publicly to file corruption references against the PML-N leadership. Why should corruption be hidden in the first place on whosoever’s behest? Why should the NAB chief toe a line that is not in conformity with the established principles of justice and fair play?
From the ‘president’ to the ‘prime minister’ to the cabinet ‘ministers’ and a vast coterie of servile attendants, it is a bunch of crooks and convicts that rules the country today. What is even more gruesome is that this system, in its present shape and formulation, would continue to throw up people of dubious backgrounds and intentions to crowd the legislatures for an unending fun time. The army chief appears acutely aware of what ails the country. With a government failing in fulfilling all its primary responsibilities and with the prospects of agitation growing, are we headed for another intervention on the lines of what led to the restoration of an independent judiciary? After all, there is Article 190 in the Constitution binding all executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan to act in aid of the Supreme Court. Are we ever going to learn?
The writer is a political analyst. Email: raoofhasan@hotmail.com
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Opinion
The reign of pygmies
Babar Sattar
Saturday, May 05, 2012
The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.
This drama is now getting unreal. Or is it? The highest court of the land convicts the prime minister and he lashes out at anyone who suggests that there is an ethical case for a convicted chief executive to step aside.
While the reasoning of the court is awaited, the parliament chimes in and reposes full confidence in the convict. This is accompanied by a sense of swagger amongst members of the ruling regime. In standing behind a convict do you wipe clean the ignominy that attaches to him or do you rub your own noses in dirt? But then what does an insult mean when you are impervious to it? And in there lies our existential crisis. The voice of conscience – the one distinguishing right from wrong for each one of us – is being muffled by our collective social and political values that singularly focus on interests and have no room for principles.
The prime minister’s contempt case is simple. The prime minister refused to follow court orders in a matter that could create legal consequences at some point in the future for a man he is beholden to: the head of his party and the president of the country. He was asked by the court to cure his delinquency and he refused. His position has been that the verdict is not implementable because it is against his reading of the Constitution, and that the court is biased against the PPP and not a neutral arbiter of the law. If the prime minister’s declaration that neither he nor anyone else in his party will implement the judicial verdict and blatantly painting the judiciary as a biased political actor out to hurt the PPP with a vengeance doesn’t amount to undermining the independence of the judiciary and bringing it into ridicule, what else would?
But let’s forget the merits. In adversarial proceedings one of the parties always walks away from court unhappy. Judges can get things wrong, and they often do. Every appeal against a judicial decision argues that the court has erred. This doesn’t scandalise a court or tarnish its independence. Imputing vile motives and maligning its integrity does. When everyone affiliated with the ruling party in the executive and parliament stands up to sully the independence and integrity of the judicial organ because it renders a decision against the personal interests of the party head, at stake is the very notion of rule of law, democracy and constitutionalism. The pygmies at the helm are willing to demolish the legitimacy that attaches to every judicial edict merely to protect the personal interests of two men linked to one court order.
Aitzaz Ahsan sat in a press conference after the contempt verdict and sowed the seeds of a possible confrontation between the judiciary and the parliament over the prime minister’s disqualification matter. He suggested in essence that if the speaker of the National Assembly ‘independently’ concludes that there has been a mistrial, because Article 63(1)(g) was not mentioned in the charge sheet against the prime minister, she might conclude that no question of the prime minister’s disqualification has arisen and that will be the end of the matter. In other words, even if the Supreme Court explicitly says that a question of disqualification has arisen, the speaker can overrule the court.
Alexander Hamilton (one of the founding fathers of the US Constitution) argued a few centuries back that, “there can be no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.” His argument prevailed and we have since had the concept of separation of powers in written constitutions. One cannot expect Farooq Naek and others in his category of flatterers, whose careers and fortunes are built on unconditional loyalty to the head honcho, to appreciate the need for separation and limitation of powers and institutional accountability in a functional system of governance. But what does it take to reduce a person like Aitzaz Ahsan, who inspired respect and bi-partisan acclaim on the basis of his intellect and ability, to an illusionist dressing up toxic partisan ideas as legal and constitutional arguments.
The prime minister’s contempt saga is inflicting serious damage on the credibility of the judiciary as a neutral arbiter of the law. Let us remember that truth is a relative concept. It is the success of competing narratives that eventually determines what will be accepted as the truth. And the narrative against judicial independence and integrity has never been as staunch as it is today. With the judiciary’s institutional reputation of independence under a cloud, who will hold anyone to account in this polity? Even if there are convictions of individuals within the ruling regime for corruption or abuse of power (and in candid moments those part of the ruling clique admit there is a lot of both in today’s Pakistan), will it not be presented as manifestation of judicial bias?
Interestingly, neither Babar Awan nor Farooq Naek had the ability or standing to accomplish this feat. In Rudyard Kipling’s advice to his son (If neither foes nor loving friend’s can hurt you/Yours is the earth and everything that’s in it) lies the faint suggestion that loving friends possess a greater ability to inflict hurt than foes. Aitzaz Ahsan was unflinching in his leadership of the movement that strengthened the imperative of rule of law and an independent judiciary in Pakistan, even after Asif Zardari became the prime obstacle in the way of restoration of judges. The moral credibility that he garnered in the process, he might now be squandering in defending partisan interests of his party’s top leadership. But when yesterday’s friend casts a stone at the court, the public judges both parties to an extent even if in varying degrees.
It is not the conduct of tainted politicos such as the prime minister, but that of respected ones like Aitzaz Ahsan that has highlighted the crisis of morality in our society and revived the debate about professional ethics? Does a lawyer owe a narrow professional duty to accept every brief and protect the interests of a client in all circumstances? Where does truth fit into this equation? Back in the day would a lawyer have been wrong in refusing to defend Al Capone for example? What if a client has killed someone and while admitting it to his attorney, he wishes to plead innocent i.e. deny the act altogether as opposed to building a defence on the basis of mitigating circumstances? Is the lawyer under an obligation to comply with client instruction or can he withdraw?
What if a lawyer personally interprets provisions of the law in view of which his client’s acts fall foul of the law? Is a lawyer then required to be intellectually dishonest in arguing the alternative view, or can he refuse to accept the brief? As lawyers we make choices every day that have wider implications for the society. Should these choices be judged on the sole basis of whether or not they serve client interests and help us make money? Do members of the legal fraternity owe no social or political responsibility in terms of the jurisprudence they help evolve? Is Sharifuddin Pirzada loathed because he was not assiduous in promoting client interests, or because his rigor and intellect helped steer constitutional law in a direction that divorced it from moral content?
Dying integrity along with dying faith in anyone’s ability to possess integrity is rendering us cynical, divided and morally bankrupt as a community. If we don’t stem this rot by adding more introspection and judgment to our individual, professional and public lives, we might be left with no measure as a society and a polity to tell right from wrong.
Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu
The reign of pygmies
Babar Sattar
Saturday, May 05, 2012
The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.
This drama is now getting unreal. Or is it? The highest court of the land convicts the prime minister and he lashes out at anyone who suggests that there is an ethical case for a convicted chief executive to step aside.
While the reasoning of the court is awaited, the parliament chimes in and reposes full confidence in the convict. This is accompanied by a sense of swagger amongst members of the ruling regime. In standing behind a convict do you wipe clean the ignominy that attaches to him or do you rub your own noses in dirt? But then what does an insult mean when you are impervious to it? And in there lies our existential crisis. The voice of conscience – the one distinguishing right from wrong for each one of us – is being muffled by our collective social and political values that singularly focus on interests and have no room for principles.
The prime minister’s contempt case is simple. The prime minister refused to follow court orders in a matter that could create legal consequences at some point in the future for a man he is beholden to: the head of his party and the president of the country. He was asked by the court to cure his delinquency and he refused. His position has been that the verdict is not implementable because it is against his reading of the Constitution, and that the court is biased against the PPP and not a neutral arbiter of the law. If the prime minister’s declaration that neither he nor anyone else in his party will implement the judicial verdict and blatantly painting the judiciary as a biased political actor out to hurt the PPP with a vengeance doesn’t amount to undermining the independence of the judiciary and bringing it into ridicule, what else would?
But let’s forget the merits. In adversarial proceedings one of the parties always walks away from court unhappy. Judges can get things wrong, and they often do. Every appeal against a judicial decision argues that the court has erred. This doesn’t scandalise a court or tarnish its independence. Imputing vile motives and maligning its integrity does. When everyone affiliated with the ruling party in the executive and parliament stands up to sully the independence and integrity of the judicial organ because it renders a decision against the personal interests of the party head, at stake is the very notion of rule of law, democracy and constitutionalism. The pygmies at the helm are willing to demolish the legitimacy that attaches to every judicial edict merely to protect the personal interests of two men linked to one court order.
Aitzaz Ahsan sat in a press conference after the contempt verdict and sowed the seeds of a possible confrontation between the judiciary and the parliament over the prime minister’s disqualification matter. He suggested in essence that if the speaker of the National Assembly ‘independently’ concludes that there has been a mistrial, because Article 63(1)(g) was not mentioned in the charge sheet against the prime minister, she might conclude that no question of the prime minister’s disqualification has arisen and that will be the end of the matter. In other words, even if the Supreme Court explicitly says that a question of disqualification has arisen, the speaker can overrule the court.
Alexander Hamilton (one of the founding fathers of the US Constitution) argued a few centuries back that, “there can be no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.” His argument prevailed and we have since had the concept of separation of powers in written constitutions. One cannot expect Farooq Naek and others in his category of flatterers, whose careers and fortunes are built on unconditional loyalty to the head honcho, to appreciate the need for separation and limitation of powers and institutional accountability in a functional system of governance. But what does it take to reduce a person like Aitzaz Ahsan, who inspired respect and bi-partisan acclaim on the basis of his intellect and ability, to an illusionist dressing up toxic partisan ideas as legal and constitutional arguments.
The prime minister’s contempt saga is inflicting serious damage on the credibility of the judiciary as a neutral arbiter of the law. Let us remember that truth is a relative concept. It is the success of competing narratives that eventually determines what will be accepted as the truth. And the narrative against judicial independence and integrity has never been as staunch as it is today. With the judiciary’s institutional reputation of independence under a cloud, who will hold anyone to account in this polity? Even if there are convictions of individuals within the ruling regime for corruption or abuse of power (and in candid moments those part of the ruling clique admit there is a lot of both in today’s Pakistan), will it not be presented as manifestation of judicial bias?
Interestingly, neither Babar Awan nor Farooq Naek had the ability or standing to accomplish this feat. In Rudyard Kipling’s advice to his son (If neither foes nor loving friend’s can hurt you/Yours is the earth and everything that’s in it) lies the faint suggestion that loving friends possess a greater ability to inflict hurt than foes. Aitzaz Ahsan was unflinching in his leadership of the movement that strengthened the imperative of rule of law and an independent judiciary in Pakistan, even after Asif Zardari became the prime obstacle in the way of restoration of judges. The moral credibility that he garnered in the process, he might now be squandering in defending partisan interests of his party’s top leadership. But when yesterday’s friend casts a stone at the court, the public judges both parties to an extent even if in varying degrees.
It is not the conduct of tainted politicos such as the prime minister, but that of respected ones like Aitzaz Ahsan that has highlighted the crisis of morality in our society and revived the debate about professional ethics? Does a lawyer owe a narrow professional duty to accept every brief and protect the interests of a client in all circumstances? Where does truth fit into this equation? Back in the day would a lawyer have been wrong in refusing to defend Al Capone for example? What if a client has killed someone and while admitting it to his attorney, he wishes to plead innocent i.e. deny the act altogether as opposed to building a defence on the basis of mitigating circumstances? Is the lawyer under an obligation to comply with client instruction or can he withdraw?
What if a lawyer personally interprets provisions of the law in view of which his client’s acts fall foul of the law? Is a lawyer then required to be intellectually dishonest in arguing the alternative view, or can he refuse to accept the brief? As lawyers we make choices every day that have wider implications for the society. Should these choices be judged on the sole basis of whether or not they serve client interests and help us make money? Do members of the legal fraternity owe no social or political responsibility in terms of the jurisprudence they help evolve? Is Sharifuddin Pirzada loathed because he was not assiduous in promoting client interests, or because his rigor and intellect helped steer constitutional law in a direction that divorced it from moral content?
Dying integrity along with dying faith in anyone’s ability to possess integrity is rendering us cynical, divided and morally bankrupt as a community. If we don’t stem this rot by adding more introspection and judgment to our individual, professional and public lives, we might be left with no measure as a society and a polity to tell right from wrong.
Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu
Jango
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,530
- Reaction score
- 99
- Country
- Location
The Supreme court has left some doubt in it's decision IMO. Although they did say that this could have serious repercussions, but they did not immediately remove the PM from office, and the PM and PPP are now taking advantage of this, and are thinking that elected representatives are being kicked out by un elected people.
There could have been two things in the SC order, that the PM is removed with immediate effect, and anybody violating this will also be in contempt of court.
The fact that the Army chief and DG ISI have met with the PM and in the DCC suggests that the army accepts this government. And this all goes back approximately 6 or 5 years ago. BB made a deal with Musharraf regarding all this NRO and everything, and the main architect of all this was not Musharraf, you may guess by now who he was. But is he now getting some second thoughts about this, i dont know, but he seems to be changing his stance a little bit, but not much. The Army is now trying to care for the country, but at the same time , respecting the promises with PPP (made all those years back).
When the SC tries to invoke the article that the Army could intervene, the army says that contact MoD, and suddenly becomes under MoD, in order to clear itself of any blame.
There could have been two things in the SC order, that the PM is removed with immediate effect, and anybody violating this will also be in contempt of court.
The fact that the Army chief and DG ISI have met with the PM and in the DCC suggests that the army accepts this government. And this all goes back approximately 6 or 5 years ago. BB made a deal with Musharraf regarding all this NRO and everything, and the main architect of all this was not Musharraf, you may guess by now who he was. But is he now getting some second thoughts about this, i dont know, but he seems to be changing his stance a little bit, but not much. The Army is now trying to care for the country, but at the same time , respecting the promises with PPP (made all those years back).
When the SC tries to invoke the article that the Army could intervene, the army says that contact MoD, and suddenly becomes under MoD, in order to clear itself of any blame.
Jango
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,530
- Reaction score
- 99
- Country
- Location
Detailed judgment issued by the Supreme court.
And the SC has specifically mentioned that the PM is rendered in-eligible for 5 years in light of this judgment.
Now, with what face would he meet David Cameron in England?
If this convict has any moral and ethics in him, only an iota of it, he should get is as# back from UK ASAP, because i feel ashamed that a convict would be going on our behalf.
BTW, Najam Sethi said about 2 weeks ago that PM will be going abroad!!!.
And the SC has specifically mentioned that the PM is rendered in-eligible for 5 years in light of this judgment.
Now, with what face would he meet David Cameron in England?
If this convict has any moral and ethics in him, only an iota of it, he should get is as# back from UK ASAP, because i feel ashamed that a convict would be going on our behalf.
BTW, Najam Sethi said about 2 weeks ago that PM will be going abroad!!!.
Jango
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,530
- Reaction score
- 99
- Country
- Location
The SC has effectively given the Speaker and EC no choice but to declare the Convict ineligible for the office of PM, through paragraphs 68-70.
The role of the Speaker NA has been reduced to a mere post box (refernce to the NA speech by the convict) now, as said by the convict. She has no choice now but to send this to the ECP , she cannot use her own sense on this.
BTW, what a shame that a convict goes to represent Pakistan in front of the British PM. THis guy has absolutely no morals, no ethics, no nothing. Did somebody see Capital talk yesterday, the PPP guy, Noor alam khan, was presenting really absurd justifications
The role of the Speaker NA has been reduced to a mere post box (refernce to the NA speech by the convict) now, as said by the convict. She has no choice now but to send this to the ECP , she cannot use her own sense on this.
BTW, what a shame that a convict goes to represent Pakistan in front of the British PM. THis guy has absolutely no morals, no ethics, no nothing. Did somebody see Capital talk yesterday, the PPP guy, Noor alam khan, was presenting really absurd justifications
Similar threads
