Tag Archives: Judical

Questions Surround New Supreme Court Order Disqualifying Prime Minister

The Supreme Court of Pakistan removed the Prime Minister in what is known as a “short order” – essentially a court order lacking a full explanation. These orders often begin, “For reasons to be recorded later…” – a practice that seems the beg for abuse and controversy – and then proceed directly to ordering some specific action on the part of an individual or institution. In this case, though, the specific action was not given until almost two months later – and made retroactive.

On April 26, the Supreme Court issued an order “for the reasons to be recorded later” that found then Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani “guilty of and convicted for contempt of court.” The Supreme Court did not declare the Prime Minister disqualified from office and sentenced him to a symbolic detention of about 30 seconds.

The Supreme Court having chosen not to disqualify the Prime Minister, the issue was then taken up by the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Fehmida Mirza, who ruled that Mr. Gilani was not disqualified. That was last month.

Today, nearly two months after the Supreme Court issued its controversial conviction, a new short order, “for reasons to be recorded later,” was issued by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry – this time declaring that “Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani has become disqualified from being a Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)…on and from the date and time of pronouncement of the judgement of this Court dated 26.4.2012…”

This raises several very interesting questions. If the Prime Minister was disqualified pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order on April 26, why did they wait until June 19 to say so? Some have suggested that the Supreme Court was giving the Prime Minister the opportunity for appeal, but this is doubtful for a number of reasons: One, the Supreme Court could have declared the Prime Minister disqualified and then stayed the order pending appeal. But more to the point, to whom would the Prime Minister have appealed? The original order was given by a 7 member bench of the Supreme Court – there was no higher authority to appeal to.

Then there is the matter of the ruling by the Speaker of the National Assembly. If the Supreme Court had determined that Mr. Gilani was disqualified as of April 26, why did they allow Dr. Mirza to proceed with deliberations and a ruling on Mr. Gilani’s status as parliamentarian? If the Supreme Court believed that Dr. Mirza did not have the authority as Speaker of the National Assembly to issue such a ruling, why did they not issue an injunction stopping the Speaker from carrying out the act?

While these questions remain unanswered, at least until the Supreme Court delivers more than the two pages made available today, they suggest very troubling possibilities. By allowing Mr. Gilani to continue serving as Prime Minister for months, the Supreme Court has created a policy nightmare for Pakistan. Making the disqualification retroactive to April 26 means that any decisions made by the government since are effectively nullified. Pakistan has, essentially, been operating without a government for over 8 weeks.

Moreover, by allowing the Speaker of the National Assembly to deliberate and issue a ruling without comment, only to nullify that decision weeks later, the Supreme Court has undermined the authority of parliament and created confusion about fundamental issues of separation of powers and constitutional authority. What government official can now carry out their duties without the fear of Supreme Court action if the Chief Justice does not like the outcome.

This gets to what is perhaps the most troubling question of all – would the Supreme have issued this new order had the Speaker of the National Assembly herself disqualified Mr. Gilani? In other words, is Pakistan’s Supreme Court acting pursuant to due process or desired outcomes?

Courtesy: http://americansforpakistan.com/2012/06/19/questions-surround-new-supreme-court-order-disqualifying-prime-minister/

Via – Twitter

New York Times – The Dregs of Dictatorship

By MOHAMED NASHEED, Maldives

my government asked the United Nations to help us investigate judicial abuses

DICTATORSHIPS don’t always die when the dictator leaves office. The wave of revolutions that toppled autocrats in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen last year was certainly cause for hope. But the people of those countries should be aware that, long after the revolutions, powerful networks of regime loyalists can remain behind and can attempt to strangle their nascent democracies.

I learned this lesson quickly. My country, the Maldives, voted out President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, its iron-fisted ruler, back in 2008, in historic elections that swept away three decades of his authoritarian rule. And yet the dictatorship bequeathed to the infant democracy a looted treasury, a ballooning budget deficit and a rotten judiciary.

I was elected that year, and with the help of the International Monetary Fund, my government worked to cut the deficit, while also building a modern tax base. For the first time in its history, the Maldives — a group of islands in the Indian Ocean — had a democratically elected president, parliament and local councils.

But it also had a judiciary handpicked by the former president, which was now hiding behind a democratic constitution. These powerful judges provided protection for the former president, his family members and political allies, many of whom are accused of corruption, embezzlement and human rights crimes.

Continue reading New York Times – The Dregs of Dictatorship

Dawn: Call the bluff – By Cyril Almeida

Excerpt;

….  if the PPP channelled the spirit of it founder and discovered an audaciousness on which success in power politics is sometimes built, it could sack its tormentor-in-chief, Gen K.

A suicidal move? Perhaps. But on such bets is history made, and unmade.

Let him stay, and a death by a thousand cuts is virtually certain. But maybe he prefers conspiracy to directness because he can’t find it in himself to pull the trigger on a coup. Why not find out?

Nonsense, many may argue. The court won’t let the orders stand. Probably. But a coup by another name is still a coup.

Why not call the bluff and see where the chips fall? History beckons. Live in the present and a miserable fate awaits.

cyril.a@gmail.com

To read complete article » Cyril Almeida

http://www.cyrilalmeida.com/2012/01/15/dawn-call-the-bluff-by-cyril-almeida/

Zardari sub pey bhari..

By Omar Ali

Asif Ali Zardari’s astounding survival as President of Pakistan is captured well in this poem by Mohammed Ayub (Punjabi, with English translation).

A friend’s comment on this topic:

In an established liberal democracy, Zardari would never have come to power and probably would have been convicted. But so would be Nawaz Sharif. So would many associates of Musharraf and of Zia ul Haq. But I think one should give credit to Zardari where it is due. He was an accidental president but the way he handled himself and led his party after Benazir was killed was impressive. He tried hard to make a coalition with Sharifs and respected other political parties’ sphere. This tolerance of dissent was unprecedented in Pakistani politics. His biggest mistake was that he frittered away the good will by opposing the lawyers movement. His biggest achievement is the 18th amendment which if implemented fully will demolish the unitary centralised state. His failures are many but there are many others who bear MORE responsibility for those failures. If the economy has tanked, this should be laid at the door of our asinine generals who are responsible for the civil war that their trainees have started and the grandstanding they never tire off. I will sympathetic to Zardari because he is being singled out for failures that are not of his making in addition to his own. failures.
My own comments: I have a soft spot for budnaam Zardari. I wish he was just one shade less corrupt and his team was one shade more competent (and I REALLY wish he didnt have a team led by Babar Awan and Rahman Malik), but he is not the root of all evil. He has compromised with everyone including the army and does not deserve the endless invective against him….its like every corrupt and incompetent person in Pakistan (a nation built on corruption, like so many others) likes to think all problems will be solved if THIS incompetent and corrupt person leaves….and his foreign policy is orders of magnitude superior to the BS that flows out of GHQ. In fact, for decades GHQ has managed its domestic dominance by staying in a state of near-war and kidnapping and killing people for trying to undermine that narrative and here is someone who says let us trade and do business and just give me my cut…I think that is not ideal, but its superior to GHQ’s version of maintaining control… I am sure there are many many stories of projects shelved because capitalists dont want to meet his demands for money and prefer to wait till Uncle Jimmy and his friends in GHQ are back in full power…When the person in charge is from outside the main elite circle, his demands for an excessive cut do look painfully unfair …and maybe he IS too greedy and asks for more than Uncle Jimmy.. but his (President Asif Zardari’s) survival would be better for Pakistan than another coup or “behind-the-scenes-coup”..
And of course, the obligatory comment from Khalid Ahmed.
Courtesy » Brown Pundits

‘Sherry Rehman reluctant to go to Washington’

Reports from US say that Sherry Rehman is reluctant to assume charge as envoy.

As the government getting fragile due to rising tensions with both judiciary and army, there are reports in Washington that Pakistan’s Ambassador-designate Sherry Rehman is reluctant to assume charge.

According to well-placed sources, Sherry’s indecisiveness was being discussed in knowledgeable quarters in the American capital. The sources claimed that the Ambassador-designate was not sure about the longevity of her party’s government.

“It was useless for her to travel to Washington to join the duties of most crucial ambassadorship of Pakistan here if the PPP government’s days are numbered,” the sources observed while quoting senior US Administration officials.

The sources cited the government’s two-way frictions against both the apex judiciary and the army in support of their argument for which Sherry was reportedly reluctant. “That is why” the sources added, “Sherry has realized of late that the establishment is having problems with the entire PPP government instead of just her predecessor Hussain Haqqani”.

With this background, the sources claimed that Sherry has already conveyed her apprehensions to the seniors in the party as well the government. She may regret taking on assignment quoting personal reasons.

The sources linked the visits of Speaker National Assembly Dr Fahmeeda Mirza and Chairman Senate Farooq Naik to the US on Jan 10 and 12, respectively, to these developments. The purpose of these two high profile visits has not been made public so far, the sources added. ….

Read more » DunyaNewsTV

A Test For Independent Judiciary

Government Judiciary Row-II, Reopening of Bhutto Case, a Test For Independent Judiciary; Presidential Reference May Become a Source of Political Re-alignments

By Aijaz Ahmed

The president’s move to submit a reference for reopening of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto case at Supreme Court under Article 186 of the Constitution of Pakistan has sparked a new debate and certain questions have been raised including a million dollar question that where will Punjab stand? Undoubtedly, the move is a clever one, and will serve the government and the Peoples Party in many ways. One aspect of the reference is seen as an effort to mend fences with the higher judiciary as in the reference, president has shown his full confidence in the Supreme Court. Secondly it will on one hand give the higher court an opportunity to correct a historic mistake and on the other hand it will force the judiciary to admit blunders committed by judiciary itself exposing the nature and extent of injustice even at the highest judicial level. The favorable decision will also help in bringing the pro dictatorship elements in the establishment under scrutiny that have been in connivance with judiciary and civil bureaucracy against democratic leadership.

In case the present judiciary fails to correct a historic injustice to Bhutto family and the PPP, the onus will be shifted to the judiciary and the anti judiciary elements in smaller provinces particularly in Sindh will justify their sentiments, said a PPP insider, adding that: ‘we always remain victim of the establishment-judiciary nexus and this is the time for both to taste some hot waters. If the historic mistake was not corrected now, the reputation of the present independent judiciary will wither away and that will be more dangerous to the already fragile federation’. …

Read more : Indus Herald

Speech of Dr. Zafar Baloch (BHRC) to the conference on South Asia

The conference on South Asia was organized by International Center for Peace & Democracy (ICFPD) in collaboration with Baloch Human Rights Council (Canada). The conference took place at Hotel Radisson Toronto, Canada on December 11, 2010.

SOUTH ASIAN PERSPETIVE ON REGIONAL STABILITY THE ROLE OF THE STATE: DEMOCRACY, DICTATORSHIP, AND EXTREMISM

ICFPD

Following is the speech delivered by Dr. Zafar Baloch, president of Baloch Human Rights council (Canada) in the conference.

Continue reading Speech of Dr. Zafar Baloch (BHRC) to the conference on South Asia