Quote:
Originally Posted by samia fakhar
now matter is also of all those decisions which were taken by govt under disqualified PM in the era of 26th april to 19th june.
|
There is nothing to be worried in this, as the upcoming PM and cabinet will give cover to all these decisions taken during that period by approving hence all these decisions will remain intact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samia fakhar
I am not good in analysing law issues but commonly another question also arise in my mind that the original issue was to write the letter to swiss govt and not to disqualify a rulling PM. The basic problem remains at its core i.e to write letter to swiss banks which i think so PPP will not write till end of its Govt...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rose_pak
I second you. "Chithi" will never be written by a PPP PM. And practically all powers are vested in the party head.
|
This is the thing that really confuses me as a student of law that the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, clearly resolves the issue in article 248(2).
“No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or a Governor in any court during his term of office.”
Also
article 248(4) No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President or a Governor shall be instituted during his term of office in respect of anything done by or not done by him in his personal capacity whether before or after he enters upon his office.
Looking at these clauses of the constitution, how can the Supreme Court, whose duty is to interpret the constitution, expect the Prime Minister to initiate an cases or reopen any previously made cases against President Asif Ali Zardari?
Not only that,
Article 248(1) also has the same for the Prime Minister as it states that he will not be answerable to any court in the country for the actions performed during his term in office... I quote the actual words of article:
The President, a Governor, the Prime Minister, a Federal Minister, a Minister of State, the Chief Minister and a Provincial Minister shall not he answerable to any court for the exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Federation or a Province.
What do you people think isn't the fact much clear from articles? I am much clear, you can form your opinion in your way...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rose_pak
[COLOR="blue"]
The PM is convicted under article 63 (1) (g) not (h).
So, the PM is sentenced under Article 63 (1) (g) for propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial to the integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary.
Moreover, the SC has not issued notification by itself, rather it asked the EC to do that. The SC had given option of appeal which the ex-PM exhausted by himself. Furthermore, the power of the speaker NA to send the reference to the EC is not "internal proceedings of the NA". So, it can be, constitutionally, challenged in the court.
|
Well Yousaf Raza Gillani has been termed to be “ineligible” by the apex court for defaming and/or ridiculing the Supreme Court. Can any one really point a finger towards him for this? Any single such incident when he might have defamed or ridiculed them?
Defaming and ridiculing is something that Nawaz and company did by attacking supreme court, how much punishment he got? redicule is something that Dr. Babar Awan did and does deserve to be punished according to the law,
but why his case has been delayed? Only becuase he has left the party silently? Don't you think that court has rewarded him only on grounds of keeping distances from PPP?
In my opinion, I have never heard the unanimously elected P.M speaking against the Supreme Court in such a way other than saying that I, being a defender of the constitution, cannot open up any case against the President.
What is wrong with that? Looking at the constitution
article 248, it seems perfectly fine..
Where in the constitution does it say that the Supreme Court is eligible to disqualify a member of the national assembly?
The Supreme Court is stepping over boundaries and will ultimately result to further mayhem in the country which is already under various internal as well as external threats.