Assalam-o-alaikum!

Would someone help me understand the status of Pervaiz Musharaf ? I mean, is he constitutionally a president or not?? If yes, then How....and if No, then How?

I don't know even the basics of Constitutional Law/Political Science, so i am unable to understand his status....plz help!

ALLAH HAFIZ!
A.J.

"A bill to amend the Constitution may originate in either House (National Assembly or the Senate) and, when the bill is passed by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House, it shall be transmitted to the other House." As such, it is still considered by the Constitutional experts that General Musharraf requires two-thirds majority to have his Constitutional Amendments or L. F. O. 2000 validated. In addition, the legal position of General Musharraf is also not in accordance with the Constitution of Pakistan for it does not recognize a uniformed Army Chief as the Head of State. Under the Constitution of 1973, only a majority vote in National Assembly, Senate, and four Provincial Assemblies can elect a President.

ASA
u can read the constitution here
http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/
Regards,
Adnan

hello Kasif,

AJ raised a very intriguing question though u indeed entertained it in a somewhat abstract way! please i request to be more open and easy going.
i too have no concrete background of constitution law yet my understanding is confined to the point that president is a state of head with the conformity of law as the bill he induced in the NA is passed by the "grace" of MMA support. so please tell us that why he is not a legitimate head of state and what connection to LFO constitution has?

hope u will consider the request!

Assalam-o-alaikum!

Friends, let me make it clear that I appeared in interview this month, as i passed the written 2004 exam. I was asked this question in the interview.....and unfortunately I was not aware of the laws+clauses of constitution that make musharraf a legitimate president. I knew that 17th ammendment was passed, but it made it obligatory for the president to shed his uniform by Dec. 31, 2004, which he did not, so I was very confused as to how he was legitimate president. I asked this question from a constitutional/political science student....but he said that ONE SHOULD SIMPLY SAY "SORRY" WHEN THIS QUESTION IS ASKED IN INTERVIEW....and i did the same.

Now I am waiting for my result.....rest of my interview was 95% perfect as i faced no other problem during my interview......but only this one question (last question at the last minute) has made me very much tense abt my result....

ALLAH HAFIZ!
A.J.

salam

according to article 239 of constitution of pakistan ]
Constitution Amendment Bill
(1) A Bill to amend the Constitution may originate in either House and, when the Bill has been passed by the votes of not less than two- thirds of the total membership of the House, it shall be transmitted to the other House.

(2) If the Bill is passed without amendment by the votes of not less than two- thirds of the total membership of the House to which it is transmitted under clause (1), it shall, subject to the provisions of clause (4), be presented to the President for assent.

(3) If the Bill is passed with amendment by the votes of not less than two- thirds of the total membership of the House to which it is transmitted under clause (1), it shall be reconsidered by the House in which it had originated, and if the Bill as amended by the former House is passed by the latter by the votes of not less than two- thirds of its total membership it shall, subject to the provisions of clause (4), be presented to the President for assent.

(4) A Bill to amend the Constitution which would have the effect of altering the limits of a Province shall not be presented to the President for assent unless it has been passed by the Provincial Assembly of that Province by the votes of not less than two- thirds of its total membership.

(5) No amendment of the Constitution shall be called in question in any court on any ground whatsoever.

(6) For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that there is no limitation whatever on the power of the Majlis- e- Shoora (Parliament) to amend any of the provisions of the Constitution.]

so that means musharraf had to get 2/3 votes of parliament for validity for LF O and secondly any person who holds a public office already cant become a president.

these reasons may not be correct,,, but u have to tell some something abt that in interview.... one shud not say "sorry" in interview as this is an opinion based question .. and u shud answer ...
we shud only say sorry for questions which has definite answers
like where is vatican city ? whast the population of pakistan etc.

allah hafiz

Well guys... I think his stance needs to be justified brushing aside the constitution. Just call it a new interpretation of the constitution with the need of the changing times. Mushy uncle was the need of the hour!

Zia-Ul-Haq was also appointed considering the Law of Necessity! (He got his assent from Supreme Court)

Regards,
Adil Memon

__________________
"The race is not over because I haven't won yet."

Adil Memon
Police Service of Pakistan (P.S.P)
37th Common Training Program

Salaam aleikum,

I just wanted to quote this:
"Necessity is the mother of invention ". Laws are invented if not modified according to our army's requirements. If Gen. Zia-ul-Haq got an assent from the Supreme court just because he thought it was necessary, only this time Musharraf thought it was essential so he didn't need any assents either. By and by, the constitution is losing its significance in the govt. of Pakistan against the metal hand of our generous army(rule PAF out as those ppl are angels... seriously, its only the Ground forces & the Navy that are corrupt ).

Also, i would like to quote the tempting signature of my little bro Khushal:

" NA TERA PAKISTAN HAI, NA MERA PAKISTAN HAI, YEH USKA PAKISTAN HAI JO SADR-E-PAKISTAN HAI"

By the way, best of luck brother A.J. I'll pray for ur success.

Regards,

BUSHaRRaF

Assalam Alaikum,

Though I am very much illiterate about Pakiatani Constitutional Law, but wanted to pass my observation along.

When he came in 1999, Mr. Musharraf was not well received by international community, because of his uniform status but stayed in power at will as Chief Executive. But until the incident of 9/11, he had no support but became the darling of the west in day time, and his staying in power with or without the consent of the Parliament is not necessary. As he is the so called protector of the western interests in Pakistan. So was the case with Mr. Zia ul Haq, he was kept until he was needed and was then was disposed.

I firmly believe the elections of recent parliament was the ploy of Mr. Busharraf (this term fits here, not directed to our member), so he have some legitimacy in the west, the so called preachers of the democracy. I also believe that he will not shed his uniform even in 2007.

But wait and see.

Thanks.

AOA

for Busharaf: the laws are changed according to whims of ruling junta either it is army or politicians

so far as Musharaf is concerned, though i m not fully supportive of his all policies, but he have done many things good, nd look the scenario of his coming into power, he had two options : do or die, nd his lieutenants supported him for the first (lieutenant here does'nt mean a uniformer without one bip at each shoulder)

for BMDD; yeah it is the possibility that he may continue with the uniform after 2007, it really depends now completion of Relief and Rehabilitation operation, if it is completely succesfuly, he wil b having good position, not only outside but also inside the country

__________________
'Thee woh ik shakhs kay tasawar saay - abb woh ranayee khayal kahaan'