Legal reasoning/arguments against or in favour of Supreme Court verdict

[Long.Live.Pakistan]

Decision of supreme court is public property so its debatable topic and here is opinions of legal experts which is more logical than trolling and personal opinion of emotional supporters

watch these videos of legal experts before commenting on this verdict

 

[expert]

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 did not include FZE. There is no other basis to challenge this decision.

A question was asked on Law Stack Exchange before the verdict and experts on the site thought this was a case of dishonesty unless it was an "innocent mistake." Unfortunately, not pleading that this was an "innocent mistake" (which is very likely) was only one of the manye legal blunders made by Nawaz's lawyers. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/21395/panama-papers-scandal-is-a-salary-withdrawn

In the 20th April two judges followed the "spirit of the law" and believed that Nawaz was dishonest in his speeches. The three latter judges followed the "letter of law" and because that was a matter of mixed law and fact, the Supreme Court could not judge against the respondent in the absence of a trial. However, the letter of law says that the misdeclaration on the ECP form was dishonest. My thinking is that the first two judges might have let Nawaz go on this one.

The judiciary's job is to apply law to all equally without concern for any consequences.

 

[Long.Live.Pakistan]

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 did not include FZE. There is no other basis to challenge this decision.

A question was asked on Law Stack Exchange before the verdict and experts on the site thought this was a case of dishonesty unless it was an "innocent mistake." Unfortunately, not pleading that this was an "innocent mistake" (which is very likely) was only one of the manye legal blunders made by Nawaz's lawyers. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/21395/panama-papers-scandal-is-a-salary-withdrawn

In the 20th April two judges followed the "spirit of the law" and believed that Nawaz was dishonest in his speeches. The three latter judges followed the "letter of law" and because that was a matter of mixed law and fact, the Supreme Court could not judge against the respondent in the absence of a trial. However, the letter of law says that the misdeclaration on the ECP form was dishonest. My thinking is that the first two judges might have let Nawaz go on this one.

The judiciary's job is to apply law to all equally without concern for any consequences.

There were few point mentioned if you watched the entire clip

1) This case was highly politicise and Judges had no option but to disqualify Nawaz

2) It was like digging mountain and finding dead rats. All those corruption in billions, offshore companies and money laundering charges were never proved and supreme court has used or set a very low threshold for disqualification of PM

3) Disqualification under article 62 and 63 is very vague as it dont set limitations i.e how long this should last . Whether this ban should be permanent or politician should have chance for repetance or recitification of their intentional or unintentional mistake of not filling the submission form completely

4) confusion about definition of assets and what should be declared as assets as in case of ikama

5) neutrality of accountability court or fair trail is not possible if a supreme court judge watch over lower court as they will never dare to go against the big court decision to overturn it when SC JUDGES had made up their minds

6) If this process stop at nawaz the it will show that implementaion of article 62/63 was selective

 

[expert]

There were few point mentioned if you watched the entire clip

1) This case was highly politicise and Judges had no option but to disqualify Nawaz

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.

2) It was like digging mountain and finding dead rats. All those corruption in billions, offshore companies and money laundering charges were never proved and supreme court has used or set a very low threshold for disqualification of PM

It doesn't matter what they found in the end. It proved Nawaz Sharif was dishonest. It feels anti-climatic, but the correct law has been used. The SC does not set thresholds. It interprets the law and applies it. If the law is harsh, the lawmakers must be questioned.

Al Capone, the American gangster was caught on tax evasion charges! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone

It's the wrong perception that money laundering charges were never proved. The Supreme Court CANNOT rule against an individual for offences which require a trial. They can only make rulings on Constitutional matters and in this case whether or not Nawaz was honest (62/63). A criminal trial will follow where the charges will be proved--the JIT report is so incriminating there is little chance Nawaz will not be convicted.

3) Disqualification under article 62 and 63 is very vague as it dont set limitations i.e how long this should last . Whether this ban should be permanent or politician should have chance for repetance or recitification of their intentional or unintentional mistake of not filling the submission form completely

That is what the Supreme Court is there for. They are there to interpret the Constitution and law. Only they will be able to tell us if there are any limitations or not. That is why Nawaz might file a petition to consider how long the ban applies for according to the Constitution. The Court will interpret what the Constitution says.

4) confusion about definition of assets and what should be declared as assets as in case of ikama

If there was confusion, the lawyers should have said that. They should have said that Nawaz Sharif made an honest mistake in confusion. Instead, the lawyers chose challenge the JIT by making saying Nawaz knew he was entitled to the asset but did not mention it anyway because he was not withdrawing it.

5) neutrality of accountability court or fair trail is not possible if a supreme court judge watch over lower court as they will never dare to go against the big court decision to overturn it when SC JUDGES had made up their minds

Yes, neutrality is only possible when the accountability institutions are under accused. Makes sense. 2) You say the judges haven't been able to prove money laundering. Then you say they have made up their minds. Doesn't match. The SC hasn't made a decision yet.

6) If this process stop at nawaz the it will show that implementaion of article 62/63 was selective

Now that it has started, it won't stop. The petitioners will just need to show that the respondents were dishonest under "solemn affirmation." The best way to conduct accountability is NAB but neither PML nor PPP wants that because most of their MNA/MPS would be in jail if the NAB was working.

 

[Long.Live.Pakistan]

@expert Judges are not infallible and can make error in interpreting laws or constitutions and there could be procedure errors. You had 5 judges bench and two judges disqualified nawaz before even Ikama was introduced or JIT was formed. They did not even monitor JIT or hearings but still joined others three judge at the end to make it 5-0 . My point is if three judges disqualified nawaz because he did not declared asset( unrecieved salary is now asset) which he was not taking from his son and just existed on paper in order to obtain Ikama then what was the grounds of disqualification for intial two judges when rest three judges could not find evidences of corruption and money laundering and felt the need to send refrences to NAB. Its all messy and all judges have their own mind and used different assessment

 

[Yaseen1]

sc should overthrow whole govt and form caretaker govt otherwise next nine months will be of complete uncertainty

 

[simple Brain]

sc should overthrow whole govt and form caretaker govt otherwise next nine months will be of complete uncertainty

It will happen eventually, when PMLN will run out the credible people to elect them as PM, Shahid K A, and Shehbaz S they both are wanted in NAB references, will see what happens in next couple of months.

 

[gutto786]

here is opinions of legal experts

Hahahaha Experts:
Aasma Jahangir (The Witch)
Talat Hussain (lafafa)
Geo TV (Most Neutral Channel...haha)

Besharam Behaya log. Sell outs!!
So lets analyze from a neutral point of view:

Charges on Nawazistan Badshah

1- Money Laundering charges
2- Not declaring international firms associated to his family
3- Not declaring he took money from international firms as a salary worker
4- Not declaring how he moved the funds to create run these families by proxy (his children)
5- Forged documents in Supremecourt, mulitple offences comitted
6- Using TV channels , paid for by himself to promote anti Supreme court messages via media campaign
7- Political party members , launching verbal threats against Judges and honest officials
8- Conflict of interest holding two different jobs while being PM of Pakistan
9- Lying in parliment

 

[expert]

@expert Judges are not infallible and can make error in interpreting laws or constitutions and there could be procedure errors. You had 5 judges bench and two judges disqualified nawaz before even Ikama was introduced or JIT was formed. They did not even monitor JIT or hearings but still joined others three judge at the end to make it 5-0 . My point is if three judges disqualified nawaz because he did not declared asset( unrecieved salary is now asset) which he was not taking from his son and just existed on paper in order to obtain Ikama then what was the grounds of disqualification for intial two judges when rest three judges could not find evidences of corruption and money laundering and felt the need to send refrences to NAB. Its all messy and all judges have their own mind and used different assessment

Who said they couldn't find evidence of corruption and money laundering? They thought that they could not decide "honesty" based on corruption and money laundering. They sent it to NAB because they found so much corruption and money laundering. However, the constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial in a trial court before conviction (disqualification is not a conviction. It's constitutional). They disqualified Nawaz for lying on the ECP form under solemn affirmation. Not one expert has said the judges made an error in interpreting the law or made a procedural error.

Not even the PML is thinking about challenging the decision except to the grounds that the petition did not ask for disqualification under FZE grounds. If they thought any other arguments had even an iota of success, they would have explored that.