Fate of pm?
 

will government loose its pm over letter to swiss bank?
what effects will actually swiss letter put on government if its written or viceversa?
will present government complete its tenure with a happy ending or a tragic one?

OPENION POLE OPEN FOR ALL....

Yes PM will be changed but the new PM will be also from PPP
If the letter is written then court won't be able to sentence president but corrupt face of Asif Ali Zardari will be in front of every one.
If letter is not written then only PM will be changed and again court will force new PM to write letter but PPP will get an advantage in between all this that it will get time upto start of new fiscal year and will give a new budget and Asif Ali Zardari's corruption will remain unproven till he left the country and new Government comes.
PM is guilty, PPP has lost its popularity so we can't call it happy end for PPP.

[QUOTE=Aamish Bhatti;403792]Yes PM will be changed but the new PM will be also from PPP
If the letter is written then court won't be able to sentence president but corrupt face of Asif Ali Zardari will be in front of every one.
If letter is not written then only PM will be changed and again court will force new PM to write letter but PPP will get an advantage in between all this that it will get time upto start of new fiscal year and will give a new budget and Asif Ali Zardari's corruption will remain unproven till he left the country and new Government comes.
PM is guilty, PPP has lost its popularity so we can't call it happy end for PPP.[/QUOTE]

agreed...but don't u think change of PM is not a petty issue it will affect countries repitation globally

of course it is not a petty issue but as for as the question of reputation is concernd:onesec I think change of PM will give a positive message to world that our courts are free and are taking fair decisions on merit base and even PM can't influence the judiciary:happy: (won't it increase our global reputation?:glare:)

I am by no means a legal expert but my limited knowledge of judicial-legal procedures and interplay of politics make me understand following.

1- Chances of PM's conviction are very remote.It will make the incumbent judiciary contrvercial and judges will be least inclined to lead this situation to emerge. Besides, the legal convention dictate that benefit of doubt goes to accused. PM as per rules of business acted upon the advice of Law and Justice Division.

2- Govt has a card to play. If they see the judiciary bent upon doing unfavourable verdict they will raise the isue of immunity. Now a separate proceedings have to decide this issue.Even if the verdict dont go to the favour of Govt, the benuifit of doubt arisen out of ambiguity will have to given to PM.

3- To surprise of many, in my humble opinion, it is not matter of letter.You know what is the ground on which this letter has to be written? The ground is that the letter previously written by Justice Qayoom to swiss authorities was unauthorised(not-illegal). What prevent the Govt to lend authority and legtimacy to that letter with retrospective effect? It is point to ponder.

4- Previous letter was written by former attorney General? Why Court dont order the incumbent attorney General (who is state's principal Prosecutor and also prosecutor in this case) to write letter to swiss authorities? He is most relevant person to this effect?

5- Why Supreme Court dont write letter it self , through Registrar? It is not something out of ordinary. Precedence exist where judicial authorities interact with foreign Govt authorities?

Dear fellows both the sides are playing to gallery? They have their interests embedded in keeping this dispute intact. Judiciary conveys message to public that we can confront the sitting Govt where as PPP earn the sympathises of its voters that we are being victimised. This issue keep the public discourse tied to it and real issues goes in to background.

@Sleeqa Batool
I really appreciate your analysis of issue:bow. I was unware about the letter written by former attorney general so I've querries regarding your post. If the letter written by Justice Qayyum was unauthorised then in case court orders present attorney general to write letter and if present attorney general is writing a letter to swiss authorities will it be authorised? (if yes, then on what grounds is the letter written by Justice Qayyum unauthorised?) or if court is writing letter to swiss authorities through registrar, will it be authorised (in case Govt: refuses to lend authority)?:thinking

@Aamish Bhatti
Your query actually has made me to find answer of some interesting questions that i am sharing with all of you.

1- Why Mr Qayoom wrote letter to swiss authorities?

It may be to the utter surprise of all of you that Mr Qayoom sent this letter following the verdict of Sindh High court whereby he was directed to withdraw all cases against Asif Ali zardari , inside and outside the Pakistan.

Quote from NRO Judgement para 124

[QUOTE] on 15th December 2009, the then Attorney General for Pakistan (Malik Muhammad Qayyum) again appeared on Court’s call; he read Section 7 of the NRO, 2007 with reference to withdrawal of cases and informed the Court that Constitution Petition No. 265 of 2008 (Asif Ali Zardari v. Government of Pakistan) was filed before the High Court of Sindh, whereby directions were sought for the Federation and the NAB, both, t[B]hat they should withdraw all the cases pending in Pakistan and specifically proceedings in Geneva and in London and all others under the provisions of the NRO, 2007[/B]; the NAB authorities appeared before the Sindh High Court and made a statement that they would make efforts to withdraw the proceedings from all the Courts in and outside Pakistan; th[B]e Court, vide order dated 4th March 2008, directed to do the needful within a period of two week[/B]s; he further stated t[B]hat in pursuance of said order[/B] and also under the instructions of the then President, he issued a letter dated 9th March 2008 to the Attorney General of Geneva regarding withdrawal of proceedings. Copy of said letter has also been placed on record, which is reproduced hereinbelow in extenso:-[/QUOTE]

Accordingly Mr qayum wrote the letter whose text is given below.

[quote]“Re: P/11105/1997 and CP 289/97, Republic of Pakistan Vs/ Asif Ali Zardari and Jens Schlegelmich

Dear Mr. Attorney General,
We write you further to our meeting of 7 April 2008.

We hereby confirm that the Republic of Pakistan having not suffered any damage withdraws in capacity of civil party not only against Mr. Asif Ali Zardari but also against Mr. Jens Schlegelmich and any other third party concerned by these proceedings. This withdrawal is effective for the above captioned proceedings as well as for any other proceedings possibly initiated in Switzerland (national or further to international judicial assistance). The Republic of Pakistan thus confirms entirely the withdrawal of its request of judicial assistance and its complements, object of the proceedings CP/289/97.

Request for mutual assistance made by the then government, which already stand withdrawn, was politically motivated. Contract was awarded to pre-shipment inspection companies in good faith in discharge of official functions by the State functionaries in accordance with rules.
The Republic of Pakistan further confirms having withdrawn itself as a damaged party and apologizes for the inconvenience caused to the Swiss authorities.
Your sincerely,
Sd/-
Malik Muhammad Qayyum
Attorney General for Pakistan.”[/quote]

2-[B]What is court objection over this letter?[/B]

The NRO Judgement says that

Para 127 of NRO Judgement says[quote]As far as issuing a letter to Attorney General of Geneva dated 7th April 2008 by Malik Muhammad Qayyum (the then Attorney General) is concerned, it seems that he had done so in his personal capacity, against the Rules of Business, 1973. In this behalf it may be noted that under Rule 14 of the Rules of Business, 1973, he was required to consult the Law, Justice and Human Rights Division on all legal questions, arising out of any case[/quote]

So the Court objection is that writing this letter was violation of Rules of Business 1973.

But the accused party itself had contacted Ministry of law and Justice requesting them to withdraw the cases in accordance with NRO and Ministry reply was
[quote] “a letter was addressed to Law Ministry by Mr. Farooq H. Naik, ASC (on behalf of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari), requesting therein that since this NRO, 2007 has been promulgated, as such all cases should be dropped, emphasizing upon the cases in Geneva Court; that application was processed and in routine placed before the then Minister Law (Zahid Hamid), who opposed the request and wrote a detailed note that it is not within their ambit so kindly contact the foreign office[/quote]

4- What would had been the actual procedure to be followed that time for withdrawal of cases?

Under Rule 54 of Rules of Business 1973 which reads as under

[quote]The channel of correspondence between the Government of
Pakistan and foreign governments shall be as prescribed by the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs[/quote]

So the matter should had been addressed to Ministry of Foreign affairs that in return was bound to consult Ministry of Law and Justice in order to proceed with this letter in accordance with rule 71 of rules of Business 1973 which reads as under

[Quote]
71. The Law and Justice Division shall be consulted in all matters
involving legal questions.[/quote]

5-Can Attorney General or Registrar address the letter to swiss authorities?

Yes they can through order of court for the following reasons.
1-Court orders supersedes rules of Business.
2-There are many International Conventions such as United Nation’s Convention Against Corruption United Nations Conventions against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances that impress upon the member countries to cooperate with the law enforcement authorities and courts of other countries.
3- Our Own statue allow certain autonomous offices such as Chairman NAB under NAO1999 and DG FMU under AML act 2010 to interact with foreign Govt .(Has the earlier letter written been written by Chairman NAB instead of AG , it wouldn’t had been held as illegal).
So the court can order any of the officer who is not functionally subordinate to the Govt like AG, Chairman NAB or Registrar to write the letter and all of them are bound under section 145 of Constitution of Pakistan to act upon Court advice.

Disclaimer: I am not legal expert and the views mentioned above are purely based upon personal judgement.