Mostly decisions are biased in Pakistan whether taken by government, its institutions or may be judiciary. The gov't has never implemented any order of the SC, if it was against it, unless pushed by the SC. The government has never been cooperative with the SC as far as implementation of certain cases are concerned.

However, I think the SC should have given the proper procedure a chance. It must not have disqualified the PM by itself. Its order to the EC shows latter just as a rubber stamp.

Now article 248 says clearly that the president has immunity against any proceedings but SC says to write a letter. This means the immunity issue has to be interpreted by the court and I think the courts are of the view that the immunity is granted within country not outside it. There are examples on international level where sitting heads of the states are convicted by the international courts. I think due to this argument the PPP has never raised issue of immunity in the court. I am sure had it raised, it would have been turned down by the courts, rightly or wrongly, most probably rightly. But the SC has remained silence over the immunity issue as well. It could have declared that according to its interpretation the president do not enjoy immunity in mega corruption cases but it has abstained from doing so and made Mr. Gillani a scapegoat.

All this means the interpretation powers make the SC more powerful, a negation of Montesqui's theory of separation of power. However, this power would always remain with the judiciary. Some could argue to establish constitutional court in Pakistan but the judiciary would still be interpreter.

The conclusion is very difficult in such a situation where constitution provides immunity to the president on the one hand and gives power to the SC on the other. Two factors may be considered: one, Is the president not really supportive of corrupt people? (Folks: i am not talking about his own alleged involvement) Why he erased the punishment awarded to Mr. Rehman Malik? Why he never tried to present himself for transparent accountability despite many allegations?

Secondly, are individual important then the system? If an individual goes, let him but make the system more accountable. Against this backdrop, I believe SC's order was a need of the hour, though I do have reservations - posted above.

The History of Swiss Case


President Asif Ali Zardari.—Illustration by Faraz Aamer Khan/Dawn.com
Contrary to the views of many in Pakistan, June 19, 2012 was one of the bleakest days for democracy in the country. An elected prime minister was disqualified by the highest bench of the judiciary on charges of contempt of court. The case made history as it remains the only case in Pakistan which resulted in the termination and disqualification of an elected representative of the parliament.

The contempt of court case was initiated against Yousuf Raza Gilani when he refused to correspond with the Swiss authorities to reopen money laundering case against President Asif Ali Zardari

The history of the case can be traced back to the first term of Benazir Bhutto. It all began when the constitutional order was amended which empowered the president and restricted the prime minister’s powers. Ghulam Ishaq Khan was elected as the president of the country in 1988 and appointed Benazir Bhutto as the prime minister of Pakistan. However, the power struggle between them was evident from the beginning which came to an end when Khan in August 1990 dissolved the national assembly and dismissed Bhutto on charges pertaining to corruption as well as failure to maintain law and order.

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif was elected as the prime minister on November 1, 1990. However, in 1993, Khan again exercised his power through the eighth amendment of the Constitution and dismissed Sharif. The Supreme Court intervened and reinstated Sharif which eventually forced Khan to resign but Sharif’s term ended in the same year.

In 1993 Bhutto was re-elected as the prime minister of the country. Bhutto’s second tenure marked many controversial events including the assassination of Mir Murtaza Bhutto which sabotaged her political career significantly. The then president, Farooq Laghari, dismissed her government after three years over charges of corruption and mismanagement.

Asif Ali Zardari, although never convicted, was in prison from 1997 to 2004 on charges pertaining to money laundering, corruption and murder.

Sharif was re-elected as the prime minister of Pakistan and initiated the case in Switzerland in 1998 which accused Benazir and Asif Zardari to have embezzled $60 million in kickbacks in Swiss bank accounts. In August 2003, both, Benazir and Zardari were found guilty of the scam. However the penalties that summed up to a fine of $100‚000‚ and the order that they return some $2 million to the Government of Pakistan‚ were suspended on appeal.

In 2007, Benazir and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) allegedly negotiated a deal with Pervez Musharraf who issued an amnesty law under which the corruption cases were considered closed. However, in 2009, soon after his reinstatement, Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry who was suspended by Musharraf in 2007, ordered to reopen the Swiss case. However, Daniel Zappelli‚ Switzerland’s prosecutor-general said that head of the state cannot be prosecuted as he enjoys immunity and if Pakistani authorities decide to lift the immunity then he should be tried in his own country.

In the latter half of 2010, Saif-ur-Rehman, who served as the interior minister during Sharif’s second term, revealed the fact that Sharif coerced the judgement on Swiss case against Bhutto and Zardari. The proceedings of the Swiss case were expedited on Sharif’s demands and the penalty was also influenced by him.

The proceedings and the verdict, as revealed by Saif-ur-Rehman, cast doubt on the authenticity and transparency of the same.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ordered Gilani to send a letter to Swiss authorities to reopen the graft case against the head of the state. However, Gilani did not comply with court’s orders because he was of the view that Zardari enjoys immunity being the head of state. The Supreme Court charged the former prime minister with contempt of court and declared him convicted of the same on April 26, 2012. Gilani was formally disqualified on June 19, 2012.

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

Just for a second, keep all the legalities on side..... Isn't there any room for moralities? How flawed is our system that laws are made for protection of criminals! If a person, who is at the helm of the state, is facing some allegations, he must be strong and fair enough to present himself for fair trial. I am not a law expert, yet one thing I strongly believe is that waiver to higher-ups makes way for violation on lower levels.

__________________
For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness

I totally agree with you Fahad. The history i posted was Dawn's story. Apart from history, I believe with the increase in authority their has to be a greater increase in accountability and responsibility.

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

Morality?

Laws are meant to punish wrong doers and protect the innocents! Sir salmond gave few reasons for necessity of justice and law, and one of the most significant among them was, man has no one reason in common and all have different reasons for pursuing their goals. Another, jurist, went one step ahead and said and said law must keep humans in awe, to push him not to commit any bad acts.

Laws are made to protect people from cruel's. Even, In islam, there is no immunity for anyone and as the whole constitution is based on islamic laws, then why this principle is ignored.

Aint it clear that immunity are for those, who are extremely dangerous for the society as whole! It reminds me of popular quote. All Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Machiavelli, rightly said, having absolute power, one can do anything

Due to contempt of court ,PM was punished for "32" seconds but not disqualified by the supream court. But the court had disqualified Gilani when the cases of the chief justice's son opened.Is it RULE OF LAW?

Biased Judiciary = Judicial COUP

in 2007 a reference against CJ was sent including the allegation of Arslan Iftikhar's appointment as SP through using unfair means. That time CJ despite of defending the allegations and clearing them started Judicial Movement (Lawyer Movement) and a country which was on the way to prosperity and people's standard of living was going up and up, suddently after Lawyer Movement Pakistan's economy suffered a lot and all development stopped .

Judiciary + Media ruined Pakistan and still reuining our beloved country... Pakistan.

I can say loudly , I hate Biased Judiciary, I hate Biased Media of Pakistan. Both, Judiciary and Media, ruined Pakistan domestically and internationally,......

I hope everybody is now recalling the days of Musharraf that was no doubt a great and prosporous era for Pakistan's Economy.

__________________
BORN TO LEAD..................

After being through all the details, i think there is a dilemma :

The court ordered Gillani to write a letter, which he denied claiming that according to constitution President enjoys immunity.Now would anybody explain if there is am immunity then Gillani was right according to constitution (not my opinion, just considering the facts)

Secondly, the new PM is automatically bound to write the letter.I dont think "Rental Raja" is going to do it.

Then how will things turn out???

__________________
To what heights I cannot rise.