115 replies to this topic

[Felicius]

PS:Annonymous, on 27 April 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

its a fair ruling, stop politicizing everything.

Let's not look very far. How many people on this forum has accepted the ruling as fair. You, and perhaps Suparco (I'm not sure how he feels yet)?

The ruling was just in the sense they didn't want to derail the 'democratic' process, country without PM, chaos, parliamentary re-elections, then the person who vacated his seat their re-election, expenses, deal with NATO, deal with Taliban, PA, etc. The ruling was very biased.

There are people who have been given a longer time-out for the same contempt of court; The judgement was hardly fair.
However, compared to 'punishment' received by NS, SS, Babar Awan for contempt of court, this was a land mark decision.

Edited by Shehz, 28 April 2012 - 07:14 AM.

[1Pakistani]

Shehz, on 28 April 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

Let's not look very far. How many people on this forum has accepted the ruling as fair. You, and perhaps Suparco (I'm not sure how he feels yet)?

The ruling was just in the sense they didn't want to derail the 'democratic' process, country without PM, chaos, parliamentary re-elections, then the person who vacated his seat their re-election, expenses, deal with NATO, deal with Taliban, PA, etc. The ruling was very biased.

There are people who have been given a longer time-out for the same contempt of court; The judgement was hardly fair.
However, compared to 'punishment' received by NS, SS, Babar Awan for contempt of court, this was a land mark decision.

Though I agree that 30 second or what ever it was punishment for PM was very very small. However, PPP was doing all this to become political martyrs and court had to balance the punishment to deny them any such martyrdom from the punishment.

Though speaking from legal point of view there are many mitigating factors which could have lead to this small punishment, the fundamental was the question of presidental immunity and how can such immunity be granted. There is no precedent in Pakistan in relation to that hence one could argue that was major factor in PM not implementing the orders as court was required to make ruling on that. Other factors include the rule of business for the office of PM and legal advice he receives. Hence those could have played a role in less sentence.

On the other side one can argue that the court after charging the PM told the PM in clear words that the PM has to do what they, the judges, tell the PM to do in its orders and PM refused point blank to implement the orders and the argument could be that at this point all the mitigating factors became useless the court gave the pm an opportunity and he refused hence sever punishment should be awarded.

But all in all we cannot ignore the fact that it was landmark decision in our history and it will have ramification whether now or at the general elections, provided they are fair and all the listing is sorted out.

[1Pakistani]

Shehz, on 28 April 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

The ruling was just in the sense they didn't want to derail the 'democratic' process, country without PM, chaos, parliamentary re-elections, then the person who vacated his seat their re-election, expenses, deal with NATO, deal with Taliban, PA, etc. The ruling was very biased.

well the chaos will still happen.  Election commission has now asked for detailed judgement.

as per the  Constitution.
Article 63(2) and (3) reads as: "If any question arises whether a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has become disqualified from being a member, the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman shall, unless he decides that no such question has arisen, refer the question to the Election Commission within thirty days and should he fail to do so within the aforesaid period it shall be deemed to have been referred to the Election Comission. (3) The Election Commission shall decide the question within ninety days from its receipt or deemed to have been received and if it is of the opinion that the member has become disqualified, he shall cease to be a member and his seat shall become vacant."

[Felicius]

1Pakistani, on 28 April 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

well the chaos will still happen.  Election commission has now asked for detailed judgement.

as per the  Constitution.
Article 63(2) and (3) reads as: "If any question arises whether a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has become disqualified from being a member, the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman shall, unless he decides that no such question has arisen, refer the question to the Election Commission within thirty days and should he fail to do so within the aforesaid period it shall be deemed to have been referred to the Election Comission. (3) The Election Commission shall decide the question within ninety days from its receipt or deemed to have been received and if it is of the opinion that the member has become disqualified, he shall cease to be a member and his seat shall become vacant."

Chairman of the Senate is a Pipliya. You think he will dare decide?
And EC will decide the 'question' only, 90 days from receipt of the "go ahead" by the Chairman of the Senate.

Timeline is August 14 or Eid still, only if the EC is of that opinion.
Nevertheless, I respect you for your research and your trust in the system.

[Sanguine]

Here is the order of the Court,

"For the reasons to be recorded later the accused Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani, Prime Minister of Pakistan/Chief Executive of the Federation, is found guilty of and convicted for contempt of court under Article 204(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance (Ordinance V of 2003) for willful flouting, disregard and disobedience of this Court’s direction contained in paragraph No. 178 of the judgment delivered in the case of Dr. Mobashir Hassan v Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 265) after our satisfaction that the contempt committed by him is substantially detrimental to the administration of justice and tends to bring this Court and the judiciary of this country into ridicule.

2. As regards the sentence to be passed against the convict we note that the findings and the conviction for contempt of court recorded above are likely to entail some serious consequences in terms of Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution which may be treated as mitigating factors towards the sentence to be passed against him. He is, therefore, punished under section 5 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance (Ordinance V of 2003)
with imprisonment till the rising of the Court today."

Now here is the Section 2 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003,

Section 2 of Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 says:

“ Definitions: In this Ordinance, unless there is anything repugnant in subject or context:

(a) "civil contempt" means the wilful flouting or disregard of –

(i) an order, whether interim or final, a judgment or decree of a court;

(ii) A writ or order issued by a court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction;

(iii) an undertaking given to, and recorded by, a court;

(iv) the process of a court;

(b) "criminal contempt" means the doing of any act with intent to, or having the effect of, obstructing the administration of justice;

© "judicial contempt" means the scandalization of a court and includes personalized criticism of a judge while holding of office;"

Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution gives one of the following grounds for disqualification of a member of the Parliament

"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 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;"

Now read the clause telling procedure of the reference.

It is not possible that you charge a person for a civil crime and you punish him for a criminal offence. Gilani has not ridiculed or scandalized the courts and there is ample evidence for that. This is one of the major ambiguities.

[Sanguine]

Shehz, on 28 April 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

The ruling was just in the sense they didn't want to derail the 'democratic' process, country without PM, chaos, parliamentary re-elections, then the person who vacated his seat their re-election, expenses, deal with NATO, deal with Taliban, PA, etc. The ruling was very biased.

Even if the President does not grant pardon to PM in such a case, can the PM be sentenced during his term of office? Doesn't he enjoy the same immunity that is enjoyed by the President?

[Felicius]

Fatima, the court already gave the deliberation, there is no likely outcome any longer, he was punished with "imprisonment till the rising of the Court today"
Kahani khatam, paisa hazam.

Elections Commissioner may not demand for anything, it is the prerogative of the chairman of the senate to involve the EC.

And if my dear friend PS still feels we can separate law and politics, then I will evoke him in Toronto again when he attains my age and I have lost all my hair.
However, in the next elections, if Gilani is ineligible to stand for office and forced to back-off, I will give all of you a standing ovation.

[Taha]

finally we have a criminal as a Prime Minister. Thanks God at least we are the first nation in the world having a criminal as a prime minister and all the cabinet is having charges of corruption. At least we are progressing in this field.

[Felicius]

Oh blime, you are so right. Before, every politician said there is no proof, and the courts acquitted them. EC rulings were overturned and pressured to accept the candidate.
Wait a minute! Law and Politics has to be separate .......

[Sanguine]

Btw it was funny to see a man on tv who said "Chief Justice sahib nay faisla dia hai tu kuch soch kar he dia ho ga tu theek faisla hai." lol!

Shehz, on 28 April 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

Fatima, the court already gave the deliberation, there is no likely outcome any longer, he was punished with "imprisonment till the rising of the Court today"
Kahani khatam, paisa hazam.

Too early to say anything. I think they have decided to appeal and if the larger bench declares the order as null and void, things could be different.

[Jazba-e-Kashmir]

Shahidnama with Hameed Gul on the issue and about the supreme court:


http://www.zemtv.com...8th-april-2012/

[ajaj]

People control your pessimistic attitude Inshallah, things will improve in the comings months and I am willing to make a prediction that on the next 14th August 2013, we will all be much happier and positive about Pakistans future.

The problem is not the system but the people who have been voted to power. Let me just ask you, how many of you did actually take the time to vote? or will vote next time? if you did not vote in last elections , thats understandable, but you have no reason to stay home, sitting on your negative lazy butt, and complain about Pakistan instead of VOTING.

[aamirzs]

http://paktribune.co...ani-249376.html

No PPP PM will write Swiss letter: Gilani


LAHORE: Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani said on Sunday no prime minister from the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) would write a letter to Swiss authorities to reopen corruption cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.

Speaking to lawyers at his Lahore residence on Sunday, he said only parliament could decide if he would continue to remain the prime minister or not. Gilani reiterated that he would not resign due to political pressure or to fulfil anyone's wishes. He added that certain elements were conspiring against him and he would not back down despite their conspiracies.

The Supreme Court had on April 26 convicted Prime Minister Gilani in a contempt case. He was sentenced until the rising of the court. Speaking on the floor of the National Assembly after his conviction, Gilani had said that he could be de-notified only by the speaker of the House. Gilani said until the detailed verdict in the case was not provided, PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif should keep his wishes repressed, a reference to the latter's demand for him to quit in the face of his conviction. He also said that Nawaz Sharif was "confused" and was now "confusing politics too". He declared, "I will actively reciprocate any kind of politics."

Separately, Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid President Senator Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain said the army is not keen to come into power and was just observing the politicians in the prevailing crisis. Talking to media after condoling with senior journalist Chaudhry Ghulam Hussain over the demise of his father, he said that despite a stay order, he recognised Shahbaz Sharif as Punjab's chief minister. He said if the rulers of Punjab were truthful about their claims of implementing the orders of the judiciary then they should hold local bodies elections at the earliest in the province which, he said, would expose their popularity.

Shujaat said those who were demanding early general elections should know that the election would be held at its due time, and for the time being they should make preparations for the local bodies polls. He said the rulers of Punjab may pander to his party's deserters but they would ultimately return to their real party. Nawaz Sharif, he claimed, had a habit of turning political opposition into personal enmity, and repeatedly confronted the judiciary, army and media during his rule.

Replying to a question, the PML-Q president said if his formula for ending electricity load shedding was implemented the energy crisis could be overcome. Elaborating his point, he said if the payment to the provinces under the NFC Award was stopped and the IPPs were paid, load shedding could be reduced to just two hours a day. Shujaat advised those calling for the resignation of the premier to wait for the detailed judgement of the Supreme Court.

[PS:Annonymous]

Those who live under illusion and were trashing the decision should read the above now. How clearly he needs to tell you his intent? he made it clear, he is not going to write a letter because him and every other thief from PPP knows that they are guilty there. But no, we have some "political scientists" here who live in the world of their own just like the rest of the nation, who believe in nothing who follow nothing and then they blame the world for being caught in to this cycle of infinite denial.

[BaburMissile]

I concur. Zardari and his gang are extremely desperate to once again become martyrs. They are looking for a way out. Another big incident to gather sympathy. Elections are upcoming and things are looking very bleak for Zardari and his cronies. The SC is caught between rock and a hard place. Everyone is aware how innocent the criminal minister really is. Let the cronies complete their term. Little time is left.

My only worry at this point are bogus elections. IK needs to push very hard for achieving clean elections. It has to be done now. All actors must be involved to assure transparent elections. We can expect massive fraudulent vote rigging in the upcoming elections.

[Caesar]

Every decent, law abiding society respects the judgements of its courts - good or bad. So I am a bit confused as to why there is this opposition to the PM being convicted? Is it due to the fact that Pak society is not law abiding?

[PS:Annonymous]

BaburMissile, on 30 April 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

I concur. Zardari and his gang are extremely desperate to once again become martyrs. They are looking for a way out. Another big incident to gather sympathy. Elections are upcoming and things are looking very bleak for Zardari and his cronies. The SC is caught between rock and a hard place. Everyone is aware how innocent the criminal minister really is. Let the cronies complete their term. Little time is left.

My only worry at this point are bogus elections. IK needs to push very hard for achieving clean elections. It has to be done now. All actors must be involved to assure transparent elections. We can expect massive fraudulent vote rigging in the upcoming elections.

Things that cannot go on forever, Dont!

[Sanguine]

Caesar, on 30 April 2012 - 05:05 AM, said:

Every decent, law abiding society respects the judgements of its courts - good or bad. So I am a bit confused as to why there is this opposition to the PM being convicted? Is it due to the fact that Pak society is not law abiding?

Criticisng a decision on purely technical grounds never amounts to trashing the judgments. Its all about interpretation of law and we have to accept the fact that the language of court order is not clear like it should have been. I am also waiting for the detailed judgment as it is going to clarify things, plus I am waiting for the decision after appeal (though I know PPP would use delaying tactics here). On a different note, the apex Court must interpret Article 248 (pertaining to immunity). The problem is not with the conviction of PM, the problem is that our SC is famous for focussing on one point and giving verdicts in the light of that single ground totally overlooking rest of the factors.

Being neutral, I believe that courts must never get into politics. Opinion of masses must never influence judgments. Once SC bench went to Khi, there was ample proof of what was happening in Khi and who was responsible for it, but did the Court give a clear judgement? What happened when Musharraf forced Nawaz Shareef out despite order of the same court? Why didnt this SC never took up the petition on contempt of court filed by Khawaja Asif (against Musharraf, Shoukat Aziz and the cabinet)? Why is it that our Punjab Government is still running on stay-order by the court? Is that ethical or even in accordance with law? These are the questions which make me think if courts are really getting into politics or what so the courts should bring to book everyone whether he is from MQM, PPP or PML-N or any other entity. Those who are saying that judgment was fair in the sense that SC did not want to derail the "democratic process" then I can only say that judiciary is the only entity which takes the "credit" for all martial laws more than any other institution.

[Sanguine]

PS:Annonymous, on 30 April 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

Those who live under illusion and were trashing the decision should read the above now. How clearly he needs to tell you his intent? he made it clear, he is not going to write a letter because him and every other thief from PPP knows that they are guilty there. But no, we have some "political scientists" here who live in the world of their own just like the rest of the nation, who believe in nothing who follow nothing and then they blame the world for being caught in to this cycle of infinite denial.

Read. But sorry to say, the court cannot take into account such statements because this kind of ridicule has become a part of our political culture (as per a decided case of 1976) and thus where it is evident that the PM is speaking in his capacity as a party worker and not as PM, such statements do not constitute contempt of court. On a different note, we should wait and see what SC decrees regarding writing of letters in its detailed judgment. And yes, I was criticising (and not trashing) the judgment on purely legal grounds. I am sure the detailed judgement would clarify as to why such a verdict was given.

[PS:Annonymous]

Fatima47, on 30 April 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

Read. But sorry to say, the court cannot take into account such statements because this kind of ridicule has become a part of our political culture (as per a decided case of 1976) and thus where it is evident that the PM is speaking in his capacity as a party worker and not as PM, such statements do not constitute contempt of court. On a different note, we should wait and see what SC decrees regarding writing of letters in its detailed judgment. And yes, I was criticising (and not trashing) the judgment on purely legal grounds. I am sure the detailed judgement would clarify as to why such a verdict was given.

I didnt referred you specifically , but there were more than just one people who were trashing the decision. I was defending the judgement purely on moral and legal grounds. First of all, everybody complains about the weaker institution in the state, but when an institute dares becoming a strong institute to empower the people, you all just jump on the other side to support like its a form of entertainment.

there shouldnt even be a discussion about the discussion, but people should rather be debating about why he is not writing a darn letter? and people would do that if they had any morals and values left in them. Pakistanis are morally bankrupt people.

[Felicius]

PS:Annonymous, on 30 April 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

Those who live under illusion and were trashing the decision should read the above now. How clearly he needs to tell you his intent? he made it clear, he is not going to write a letter because him and every other thief from PPP knows that they are guilty there. But no, we have some "political scientists" here who live in the world of their own just like the rest of the nation, who believe in nothing who follow nothing and then they blame the world for being caught in to this cycle of infinite denial.

Letter was never an issue, every child knew that no letter will be written. Even the court knew. If SC wanted any respect, they could have given a more deserving sentence, where Gilani would have been forced to step down, and the next PM would know what his outcome will be if they disrespect the law (again).
That would have set a precedence. That would have been leading by example (that no one is above the law). This judgement was political.

This trial was all about contempt of court, and not writing the letter. Just as much Chairman of the Senate won't send a request to the EC, neither will any Parliamentarian from PPP ever going to write the letter. We all knew that. Hence, the only hope left was the courts, and what do they do? They make sure that nothing will happen to the PM if he still defies the SC, and not write the letter.

If you still believe that this judgement had no element of politics involved, the that is your wish my friend.

Edited by Shehz, 30 April 2012 - 05:52 PM.

[PS:Annonymous]

Shehz, on 30 April 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

Letter was never an issue, every child knew that no letter will be written. Even the court knew. If SC wanted any respect, they could have given a more deserving sentence, where Gilani would have been forced to step down, and the next PM would know what his outcome will be if they disrespect the law (again).
That would have set a precedence. That would have been leading by example (that no one is above the law). This judgement was political.

This trial was all about contempt of court, and not writing the letter. Just as much Chairman of the Senate won't send a request to the EC, neither will any Parliamentarian from PPP ever going to write the letter. We all knew that. Hence, the only hope left was the courts, and what do they do? They make sure that nothing will happen to the PM if he still defies the SC, and not write the letter.

If you still believe that this judgement had no element of politics involved, the that is your wish my friend.

In the civilized world, it is enough to be sentenced. A person with an ounce of moral would step down. Court has given the decision, now it is up to people to remove the criminal from the office.

[PS:Annonymous]

http://www.zemtv.com...9th-april-2012/

[PS:Annonymous]

court consisted of 7 judges out of which 2 from nwfp, 3 from sindh, 1 from south punjab and 1 from Punjab. Gilani's class fallow Khosa was on the bench.

so please give me a break on this political mumbo jumboo.

[PS:Annonymous]

How true judicial independence can be achieved


By Ali Zafar
Published: May 1, 2012



The writer is advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and senior partner at Mandviwalla & Zafar
It is through an independent judiciary where judges have the power to decide any dispute without fear, favour or pressure from anyone (including the government) that the culture of impunity can be eradicated and rule of law established. Indeed, this was the reason why the people of Pakistan joined the lawyers’ movement for restoration of judges. The recent decision convicting Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani of contempt undoubtedly proves that the Supreme Court is today as ‘independent’ as any apex court in the free world.
However, the danger is that with increased independence comes the pitfalls of absolute power which can corrupt absolutely. In such situations, the fear is that the judges may start assuming that, as final arbiters, they are infallible and that the law is what they say it is. To avoid this it must be ensured that judges remain faithful to the law and continue to resist any self-indulgence which an excessive sense of independence can produce.
The apex courts have neither the power of sword nor of purse — but the real powerful tool available to them is the jurisdiction of judicial review and the authority to enforce fundamental rights. Pakistan’s superior courts have, over the years, exercised this power carefully and maturely to invalidate certain pieces of legislation and executive actions, but always stayed away from matters which could be deemed policy issues or linked to political debate.
With increased independence came the concept of ‘judicial activism’, which in my view is beneficial and sometimes essential. There are many cases where had the courts not taken a dynamic approach, justice would not have been done. For example, the Supreme Court has decided that the government’s closure of schools in remote areas violates the fundamental right to education. As result, a million students in such areas are able to receive an education. The Court has recognised that an updated and transparent voters list is part of the people’s right to democracy. The courts have also successfully unearthed cases where public wealth was being looted. Such powers would not be exercised if the courts were not independent and judicially active.
Judicial activism however took a risky direction worldwide when the media started playing a role in that the courts began taking up cases highlighted in the media. When such cases are successfully decided by the courts, public expectations that the judiciary is everyone’s saviour started to increase. This is when judicial activism started giving way to judicial adventurism. Judges came to realise that popular decisions brought fame not only to the courts but to individual judges as well. It is only natural that such publicity brings with it a sense of being ‘powerful’ and ‘influential’. The cautious approach of the past began to be considered by some judges to be timid and started being ignored. This is natural. Jurists have long said that things need to be controlled.
Under pressure from the media and the public, some judges in Pakistan are beginning to open new frontiers. The recent case of rental power projects is a good example of the courts delving into matters of economics and policy. The tendency to form commissions to investigate matters sometimes means that the courts assume the role of investigator, prosecutor and judge all in one. The courts have made commissions to recover written-off loans, passed orders for fixing prices of sugar, assumed powers to remove a head of a public-sector corporation on the basis of incompetence and are frequently appointing or removing government investigators. To me, these appear to be examples of going beyond the realm of judicial activism. This is a concern in India as well. Justice VR Krishna, a former judge of the Indian Supreme Court, is among many when he says: “In the name of judicial activism, modern-day judges in India have abandoned the traditional role of neutral referee and have increasingly resorted to tipping the scales of justice n the name of ‘distributive justice’.”
Activist judges have often ignored or side-stepped precedents to arrive at preconceived results, which conform to their conception of justice. However honest and bona fide this exercise, its legal legitimacy is open to question.
No one can be allowed to ignore the law to suit one’s perception or desire of what should be done or to decide cases according to personal whims. This is because absolute power is a negation of rule of law and will lead to judicial despotism. The moment the courts start taking decisions on policy or political matters, their actions become anti-democratic (unlike members of parliament, judges are not elected but selected). Ultimately, the end result will be (and this is a serious issue which Pakistani courts must avoid at all costs) that policy and political matters, for which the courts neither have the machinery nor manpower, will ultimately lead to confrontation with other state institutions. If we look at Pakistan’s judicial landscape, there is increased criticism that all the aforementioned is beginning to happen. In order to avoid this, the courts must consciously leave certain questions to be decided by the will of the people.
Jurists are unanimous in saying that judicial adventurism is wrong and have used the concept of ‘who will guard the guards’ in their argument. Judges agree that the way to control judicial adventurism is through ‘judicial self-restraint’ in which the courts make a self-conscious effort not to decide policy or political questions. Yet, history has shown that this self-restraint does not necessarily work all the time.
To me, if judicial power becomes unbridled and justice to the common man is denied or delayed, true judicial independence is not achieved. It is time that mechanisms are put in place to make the judiciary more accountable by regulating judicial self-restraint and by focusing on the real issue, which is to provide speedy justice to all under rule of law. The only way to achieve this is through the active participation of the Bar, civil society and the media. They are the gatekeepers of judiciary’s reputation, and must be vocal, able and willing to criticise judgments, without fear of contempt. This is the only way that the judiciary’s true independence will be achieved.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 1^st, 2012.

http://tribune.com.p...an-be-achieved/

[ghiyasuddin]

PS:Annonymous, on 30 April 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

In the civilized world, it is enough to be sentenced. A person with an ounce of moral would step down. Court has given the decision, now it is up to people to remove the criminal from the office.

+100 bro

[Sanguine]

PS:Annonymous, on 30 April 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

I didnt referred you specifically , but there were more than just one people who were trashing the decision. I was defending the judgement purely on moral and legal grounds. First of all, everybody complains about the weaker institution in the state, but when an institute dares becoming a strong institute to empower the people, you all just jump on the other side to support like its a form of entertainment.

there shouldnt even be a discussion about the discussion, but people should rather be debating about why he is not writing a darn letter? and people would do that if they had any morals and values left in them. Pakistanis are morally bankrupt people.

PS, legally speaking, its just an order. They'll file an appeal ( I know they'll delay the trial on purpose) but the detailed judgement is still not out. I have been trying to explain why such a verdict should not have been given. Why it was given by the court can only be explained after reading the judgment. If I or few others have been criticising the judgment, that does not mean that all Pakistanis have trashed the judgment. I was watching tv and there was a man who said "Chief Justice sahib nay faisla dia hai tu kuch soch k dia ho ga aur bikul theek dia hai."  That should tell you how much people count on SC (esp CJ) that they think every order issued by SC is issued by Iftikhar Chaudhary. Having said that, let me say that sense of responsibility and patriotism are usually inculcated by the politicians and justice will never prevail in this country till the time accountability starts from politicians and judges (add to it general as well).

Shehz is so right here. He has articulated the political dynamics of the case in an excellent way. I just heard the news that 3 judges (out of 9) have excused from sitting on  appellate bench and thus 1 additional and 2 ad-hoc judges will be appointed for the appellate bench. I dont know if the 3 judges were going to diagree or if they did not want to become part of an apparently so political case but its kinda weird that CJ will be appointing 1 additional and 2 ad-hoc judges when the SC has yet to appoint one judge to make the number of judges to 17. The names of these 3 judges will, in coming days, enlighten us more as to what extent things are neutral.

Shehz, on 30 April 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

Letter was never an issue, every child knew that no letter will be written. Even the court knew. If SC wanted any respect, they could have given a more deserving sentence, where Gilani would have been forced to step down, and the next PM would know what his outcome will be if they disrespect the law (again).
That would have set a precedence. That would have been leading by example (that no one is above the law). This judgement was political.

This trial was all about contempt of court, and not writing the letter. Just as much Chairman of the Senate won't send a request to the EC, neither will any Parliamentarian from PPP ever going to write the letter. We all knew that. Hence, the only hope left was the courts, and what do they do? They make sure that nothing will happen to the PM if he still defies the SC, and not write the letter.

+1

I think PM would be leaving his office once the budget is passed and will give a feeler to people how he stands on high moral grounds that he obeyed the court and sticked to his word (of resigning in case of conviction). Appeal and its decision is going to take a lot of time, I already had the hunch that PPP would have recourse to Parliament to prove that PM was right and the court was wrong (which I would call head-on collision) as Governor Punjab has already given a clue.

[Sanguine]

Here is a talk show where Muhammad Malik has excellently articulated the morality part.

[Jazba-e-Kashmir]

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani *LIVE ONLINE* in program Faisla Aapka and PTV – 1st May 2012
http://www.zemtv.com...a-1st-may-2012/

[PS:Annonymous]

Fatima47, on 01 May 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

Here is a talk show where Muhammad Malik has excellently articulated the morality part.

What is surprising is that lawyer from Multan is saying legal = moral and whatever is legal is moral thus Gilani is right to not resign. I guess he needs to read about legal but not ethical debate. Guy like him would be a gift to crooks at wall street. His whole point that People of Pakistan electing the crooks despite their crimes is what should be reflected into law. his thinking is truly represent the mind set of feudalism.

[Felicius]

Fatima47, on 01 May 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

Shehz is so right here. He has articulated the political dynamics of the case in an excellent way.

I clicked on the like icon, then remembered that it's for decorative purposes only.

[SUPARCO]

Salaam,

The court did not ask the Prime Minister to step down, the court asked the Prime Minister to write a letter to Switzerland.  Prime Minister chose not to obey the request, so he was punished in accordance.  The Prime Minister has paid for his refusal.

Why do some people want to see a democratically elected Prime Minister of their country brutally punished more than what he deserves?

How many people would write a letter against their company's Chairmanship just because his manager says so?  Why would someone prefer to leave their job for refusing to obey their manager's request?  I would rather report the manager to HR for harassing me.

Salaam

[Felicius]

SUPARCO, on 01 May 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Salaam, The court did not ask the Prime Minister to step down, the court asked the Prime Minister to write a letter to Switzerland. Prime Minister chose not to obey to request, so he was punished in accordance. The Prime Minister has paid for his refusal.  

This hearing was for contempt of court. The court gave him a deadline to write a letter; it was a judgement, not a favour requested - write the letter or face action (i.e., contempt proceedings). He didn't have an option.

SUPARCO, on 01 May 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Why do some people want to see a democratically elected Prime Minister of their country brutally punished more than what he deserved?

Maybe we are influenced by the Iraqis, Libyans and Syrians. Just kidding.
Not brutally punished but not under punished either. Should have been just (not in this case though).

SUPARCO, on 01 May 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

How many people would write a letter against their company's Chairmanship just because his manager says so? Why would someone prefer to leave their job for refusing to obey their manager's request? I would rather report the manager to HR for harassing me. Salaam

In my opinion, the analogy is not befitting to the circumstances.
Gilani is not running an industry/ SME, he is running a country. He is a public servant, an elected representative very much answerable to the people.
He has taken an oath to uphold the law. The law demanded that he wrote the letter.

No one gave him a mandate to suck up to Zardari, his mandate is towards the stake holders, who are the citizens of Pakistan.
In his case, we are his boss, and the SC is the HR Department.

[Tipu-786]

We have voted these Leaders and we have choose these leaders ---   Hooor  chupoooo demo crazy nu

[rungroot]

Tipu-786, on 01 May 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

We have voted these Leaders and we have choose these leaders ---   Hooor  chupoooo demo crazy nu

+1000000

[PS:Annonymous]

Tipu-786, on 01 May 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

We have voted these Leaders and we have choose these leaders ---   Hooor  chupoooo demo crazy nu

Well what we really should blame on is the people, the society. What Gilani is doing, his behavior mirrors our collective social behavior. Democracy is a utopian idea just like other utopian ideas of Plato. it is never going to work. What we do forget it that Pakistan was not meant to be a democracy but a Republic. This democracy hysteria is just hyped by the media and the moronic journalists in Pakistan who are hell bent on creating unrest in Pakistan.

Our moral values are non-existing and if you want to see the proof. Go to any street in Pakistan and observe the behavior of people. They have no concept of individual responsibility, no accountability. Thus the leaders that are elected in Pakistan are the result of a collective behavior of people of Pakistan.

[Jazba-e-Kashmir]

http://www.thenews.c...-premature:-IHC

[Tipu-786]

hahahaha   What a Joke  


" ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has disposed of a petition seeking to declare Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani ineligible terming it premature, Geo News reported.

Petitioner G A Chaudhry Advocate pleaded before the court that the prime minister stands disqualified after the conviction in a contempt of court case by the Supreme Court and be refrained from performing official duties.

Justice Shaukat Sissiqui heard the case. He remarked that Article 63 is about the disqualification of member parliament not of the prime minister and the detailed SC verdict is not available yet.

The court then directed the petitioner to withdraw the plea, which he did."  

[SUPARCO]

Shehz, on 01 May 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

... In my opinion, the analogy is not befitting to the circumstances.
Gilani is not running an industry/ SME, he is running a country. He is a public servant, an elected representative very much answerable to the people.
He has taken an oath to uphold the law. The law demanded that he wrote the letter.

No one gave him a mandate to suck up to Zardari, his mandate is towards the stake holders, who are the citizens of Pakistan.
In his case, we are his boss, and the SC is the HR Department.

Salaam,

Anyone who disagrees with Prime Minister Syed Yousef Raza Gilani's actions, then they're free to vote against him during the next general election.

Salaam

[1Pakistani]

Tipu-786, on 02 May 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

hahahaha   What a Joke  


" ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has disposed of a petition seeking to declare Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani ineligible terming it premature, Geo News reported.

Petitioner G A Chaudhry Advocate pleaded before the court that the prime minister stands disqualified after the conviction in a contempt of court case by the Supreme Court and be refrained from performing official duties.

Justice Shaukat Sissiqui heard the case. He remarked that Article 63 is about the disqualification of member parliament not of the prime minister and the detailed SC verdict is not available yet.

The court then directed the petitioner to withdraw the plea, which he did."  

Tipu-786, on 02 May 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

hahahaha   What a Joke  


" ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has disposed of a petition seeking to declare Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani ineligible terming it premature, Geo News reported.

Petitioner G A Chaudhry Advocate pleaded before the court that the prime minister stands disqualified after the conviction in a contempt of court case by the Supreme Court and be refrained from performing official duties.

Justice Shaukat Sissiqui heard the case. He remarked that Article 63 is about the disqualification of member parliament not of the prime minister and the detailed SC verdict is not available yet.

The court then directed the petitioner to withdraw the plea, which he did."  

To me its not a joke, what I can make from the above is that he asked to have the PM disqualified which probably is not correct hence it was reject. The proper way is to disqualify the PM as member of Parliament which would lead to him than no longer being PM.