People still watch the TV shows of Hamid Mir and other hosts like him ?

PPP is not the Law respecting party for they have decided to aacept the decision of court rather they don't want to lose their vote bank for the coming elections. But people of Pakistan (if really they're have recognized their leaders) will no more elect such corrupt political parties.

__________________
You've got to get the stage in life where GOING for it is more important than WINNIG or LOSING.

Victory of law is too far still but no doubt this is an important step towards it. Now another puppet will be holding the office of PM who will keep denying or delaying writing letter to Swiss authorities.

P.S. Special congrats to MQM and PML Q, they are once again in perfect position to bargain and blackmail PPP. Hail Democracy

Regards,

__________________
It's lack of faith that makes people afraid of meeting challenges, and I believe in myself!!!!

Well bing a student of law, this decision has really disappointed me. I am not supporting Gilani but, i am against the decision made by CJ beyond constitution. Many people may have different opinion and i respect their opinion.

Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan Artcile 63 regarding
Disqualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament): its sub-article 1 says: A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if:-

clause h) he has been, on conviction for any offence involving moral turpitude, senteced to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release;

Yousif Raza Gilani has been convicted only for two minutes, how can he be disqualified......?

This may be called a strong reaction after family gate issue.

The point is that the supreme judiciary has never heard any case against PML(N), there are 35 cases pending against sharif brothers but CJ never bothers to hear them at all, can any one dare to ask why so kindness to them?

Similar type case of Shahbaz's election of MPA from two seats is pending and shahbaz govt is running on stay order since 2 years, why no hearing since then...............?

I am worried that judiciary is playing like a rubber stamp in the hands of those people which are supposed to be next winners in election and then no one can imagine the conditions prevailing in that period by duo of CJ+govt, the historic loss will be inflicted to the public, constitution, country and democracy as well predicted by Asma Jahangir.
Once again non-democratic forces have won as yet another Prime Minister's tenure has been cut short.

__________________
Your attitude, not your aptitude, will determine your altitude...Zig Ziglar

Rift between the judiciary and govt is very much clear. We cannot say that only govt is playing with the constitution etc; SC's strong bias against the govt is also evident. The SC should have referred the matter of disqualification of PM to The Election Commission of Pakistan. The Commission would take not more than 2/3 days to disqualify the PM, as it was desperately waiting for it, but the SC went a step ahead again to air the prevailing reservations of the victim pppp that it is the judiciary of the Punjab, of PML(N) etc. And, there was no need to disqualify him from April 26, 2012. It has also opened a pindora box as to what will be the fate of decisions, tours, policies, budget etc etc now?
Moreover, it is crystal-clear that PPPP has not accepted the decision (though they were expecting it) MEANS they has not (had never) agreed to the verdict of the Apex Court MEANS they will not write the letter to the Swiss authorities. They had to accept the decision under compelling circumstances as no option is left now.

__________________
There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in.

well, no options....
[QUOTE=alimallah;443358


This may be called a strong reaction after family gate issue.

The point is that the supreme judiciary has never heard any case against PML(N), there are 35 cases pending against sharif brothers but CJ never bothers to hear them at all, can any one dare to ask why so kindness to them?

Similar type case of Shahbaz's election of MPA from two seats is pending and shahbaz govt is running on stay order since 2 years, why no hearing since then...............?

I am worried that judiciary is playing like a rubber stamp in the hands of those people which are supposed to be next winners in election and then no one can imagine the conditions prevailing in that period by duo of CJ+govt, the historic loss will be inflicted to the public, constitution, country and democracy as well predicted by Asma Jahangir.
Once again non-democratic forces have won as yet another Prime Minister's tenure has been cut short.[/QUOTE]

i am second to ur opinion and 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.
here another question is also arising that is SC should give as direct and hard and fast verdict for disqailfication of PM as it has given yesterday on 26th april... there was no need to complicate the issue till yesterday...
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...

I second you. "Chithi" will never be written by a PPP PM. And practically all powers are vested in the party head.

This is how the system works in Pakistan. Patronage based politics.



I agree with you and fear to disagree on some points as well.

The PM is convicted under article 63 (1) (g) not (h). Here is the difference.

Article 63: Disqualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament):
........... (1) A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if:-

............ (g) he has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or morality, or the maintenance of public order, or the integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary or the Armed Forces of Pakistan, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release; or

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.

Sub clause (h) does not apply here. Sub clause (h) says: he has been, on conviction for any offence involving moral turpitude, senteced to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release;

It was not a moral turpitude but bringing the judiciary into ridicule by flouting the court order openly and setting a precedence for future disobeying the superior judiciary. So, sub clause (h) does not apply here.

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.

The crux of my above arguments is: The SC order is cent percent constitutional.


However, I do have a reservation on this. The SC should have given a clear verdict on April 26 instead of saying about "serious consequences under article 63 (1) (g)". However, here I do think that the SC would have in mind that the speaker NA would act as per constitution and will forward the case to EC for de-notifying the membership of Mr. Gillani.

As for as your arguements regarding sharif cases are concerned, I totally agree with you. It seems that the cases of PPP has been taken very seriously while other cases are taken very lightly. The SC must prove that it is totally impartial and objective. There are opportunities in Arsalan case, missing person case, mehrangate and some other related cases to prove this. and I hope it will.

__________________
Ahmad Shakeel Babar
.
"If you really want to achieve something the whole universe conspires for you to get your dream realized."

If rule of Law in Pakistan needed the sacrifices of Prime Ministers, It would have been established after Bhutto was hanged to Death...
The Rule of Law in Pakistan needs unbiased decisions for its establishment.

Disqualification of the democraticly elected prime minister is a very unfortunate act. indeed this was the war between Law and Politician and the damage has been done by the law ..! but this damage should be done 4 years before why such kind of decision were made at the end when the country is at its end economic rate is down, no GDP growth , Load shading , inflation , their is a cahos every where..

this is no ones achievement. people wanted their rights they have no concerns over what the hell the government stays or not..!

__________________
"for me Life is enigmatic"

SC has given order accordance with the constitution..as Gilani was not sincere with the order given in the NRO case..well ham logo ka almya yehi hai k ham rotay rehtay hain agar NRO parliament se manzor ho jata than ham phir bhi rotay..well we must respect SC and its order. and please don't relate this one with Bhutto ..

__________________
"When God Want to Humiliate A Person then He Almighty Deprive him of Knowledge" Hazrat Ali A.S