I am watching Kamran Khan’s prog and they are showing his earlier stance and his statement from today and he has taken a U turn.
So being PM’s lawyer changed everything?
will provide link as soon as I get it.
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
hmmm Interesting. As far as I know, he has always maintained couple of things
1) Govt have to (and should) write the letter to Swiss Govt
2) President has immunity locally and internationally.
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
hmmm Interesting. As far as I know, he has always maintained couple of things
1) Govt have to (and should) write the letter to Swiss Govt 2) President has immunity locally and internationally.
hmmmm. He was like SC should not insist on writing the letter.
I did not know about the second point though. I may have missed it.
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
hmmmm. He was like SC should not insist on writing the letter.
I did not know about the second point though. I may have missed it.
I have read his interview from yesterday and he said "SC should not insist on writing letter that will be shot down by another Govt. That will be 'badnami' for SC". I think this is how he will build his case and argue.
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan’s U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
I don't really think he has changed his stance. Only that his party doesn't accept his suggestions.
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan’s U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
So if rehman dakoo becomes president tomorrow, then we can’t file a case against him for the robberies he did in 2011? 
As for aitesaz, he is a party man who is more loyal than the king than anything else. I would be a little surprised if he hadn’t changed positions on immunities from musharraf to zardari i.e. held on to his principles.
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan’s U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
Dopplegander, Dakoo (if proven guilty in court of law) will not be eligible to contest presidential election. If he is not a convicted dakoo, then those are just allegations and yes, if he becomes president with those allegations, he will be immune during his tenure.
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
Well..i think he is doing his job for what he has been paid to do. In any country..this is what lawyers do. As far as writing letter to swiss authorities over Zardari's alleged corruption then letter should be written regardless so people know that they have chosen corrupt leadership. Which means..as soon as PPP is gone out of power..the executive decision should be taken to arrest and persecute zardari and his cronies. And then govt should make an example of justice by starting from big fishes.
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan’s U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
Wasn’t he the one arguing against immunity for Musharraf and how Hazrat Umar (RA) would face allegations in courts, so musharraf should stand in court as well? If one can’t be disgusted by this then what? Party of federation my a$$.
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
hmmm Interesting. As far as I know, he has always maintained couple of things
1) Govt have to (and should) write the letter to Swiss Govt 2) President has immunity locally and internationally.
A clever statement from Aitezaz today in SC
"Govt will not write letter until Zardari is president. Letter is not the issue. Issue is whether President has the immunity or not"
So he has taken a u turn on 1st statement. and not the second. This is unfortunate.
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
Oh come one. Do people in Pakistan actually listen to the person who is being accused? I saw his interview on capital talk and he said he has always maintained that there is no 'harj' in writing the letter. I haven't seen a more principled man in Pakistani politics.
On the immunity issue, he said the constitution gives immunity to the president against criminal prosecution. The case against Musharraf was civil according to Aitzaz and that is why he didn't have immunity.
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
Oh come one. Do people in Pakistan actually listen to the person who is being accused? I saw his interview on capital talk and he said he has always maintained that there is no 'harj' in writing the letter. I haven't seen a more principled man in Pakistani politics.
On the immunity issue, he said the constitution gives immunity to the president against criminal prosecution. The case against Musharraf was civil according to Aitzaz and that is why he didn't have immunity.
I respected him always and still do.
I was just concerned about his statements yesterday and even today but then I realised he is a lawyer too so have to show loyalty to his client.
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan’s U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
Today’s example of Atetaz Ahsan lies and deception in court and out of court should be eye opener. Still, it is amazing when some people could not see (or intentionally ignore) Atetaz Ahsan lies and deception just because they believe this corrupt person is righteous hero. Looking at his lies and deception blatantly on media, shows that Atetaz Ahsan considers most Pakistanis are mentally deficient and would accept whatever he says. Let see the fact:
According to Pakistani constitution, President has immunity against criminal cases but has no immunity against civil cases. So Atetaz Ahsan started lying that cases against Musharraf were/are civil cases hence he use to claim that Musharraf had no immunity, whereas cases against Zardari are criminal cases so Zardari has immunity.
Musharraf cases: There were/are no cases against Musharraf, but regardless, the cases that some people wanted to initiate against Musharraf when he was in office (and also today) were/are criminal cases (actually murder cases), not civil cases.
Zardari cases: There are no criminal cases against Zardari in Pakistan. All cases against Zardari in Pakistan are civil cases. Pakistani case in Switzerland against Zardari is also civil case. President does not have immunity in civil cases.
Problem: Civil and criminal cases can be initiated in parallel (at the same time) with respect to same crime in any country … anyhow Zardari cases in Pakistan are civil cases and thus Pakistani courts can initiate proceeding against Zardari on these civil cases.
As for Switzerland cases against Zardari and BeNazir, they are criminal cases (money laundry case) as far as Swiss government is concerned … but they are civil cases (corruption case) as far as Pakistan government is concerned.
When Swiss government initiated criminal cases against BB and Zardari, Pakistan also showed their interest on those cases, not as criminal cases but civil cases. Pakistan claimed that money laundered by BeNazir and Zardari is obtained by these criminals from corruption in Pakistan and thus belongs to Pakistani exchequer. Pakistan demanded that money to be recovered from criminals (BeNazir and Zardari) and should get repatriated to Pakistani exchequer.
Swiss government convicted BeNazir and Zardari on criminal cases with ‘6 months prison sentence and fine’ each to BeNazir and Zardari (also to their Swiss lawyer).
Due to civil case initiated by Pakistan in Swiss court, Swiss government froze the account of BeNazir and Zardari holding around $60 million. This money was supposed to get repatriated to Pakistan.
Before repatriation of $60 million from BB and Zardari Swiss account, NRO came and in 2008 Swiss government received the letter from Pakistan that Pakistan was withdrawing their case, hence Swiss authority unfroze the money.
Thus, as far as Pakistan is concerned, the case in Switzerland is civil case and thus Pakistani courts after ‘annulations of NRO’ are justified to ask Pakistan government to write letter to Swiss authority reinitiating the case. Zardari as President has no immunity on Pakistani case in Swiss courts as they are civil case.
So, Atetaz Ahsan is blatantly lying that: Musharraf cases were civil cases and Zardari cases are criminal cases, and that is why he used to say that Musharraf as President has no immunity and now he is saying that Zardari has immunity.
Fact is that, Pakistani courts has to see case against Zardari according to Pakistani law (not Swiss law) and in Pakistani law corruption cases are civil cases (regardless of case initiated in Swiss would be criminal case or civil case), thus Pakistani court has rightly asked government to write letter to Swiss courts asking them to reinitiate cases against Zardari and if government do not do that than they are guilty of ignoring court rulings.
Here is constitution wordings (I posted earlier) and difference between civil and criminal cases:
http://www.paklinks.com/gs/pakistan-affairs/538349-presidential-immunity-2.html#post8663730
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
Saleem,
Why mqm leader did not accompany the PM to Supreme Court? Was he afraid of CJ, what mqm did on May 12, 2007 in Karachi?
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
^^^
If I was MQM leader then I would have told you the reasons. Unfortunately, I am neither MQM leader nor in line of becoming one. Anyhow, if you want me to give my opinion on MQM decision then that is:
MQM gave moral support with words but must have realised that PM was wrong in not writing the letter to Swiss authority, and that mean it would have been wrong to endorse that by giving physical support too.
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan’s U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
there is quite a kichri in this post which leads to the conclusion that 1 is equal to 2 or that civil=criminal just because of perception. Fact is, even if the government was to write such a letter, the swiss authorities would disregard it. Even you agree that the cases against zardari in switzerland are criminal and internal law forbids them to start criminal proceedings against zardari. Then what the bleep is the point of such a letter?
I am no lawyer nor a constitutional expert, but i’d trust someone with the integrity of Aitzaz over some random poster any day. Aitzaz says the case which he brought against musharraf was civil and that is the case for which he has said Musharraf had no imunity. I am not aware of other cases and maybe you can list some of the criminal ones.
p.s. I am very surprised that curroption cases in Pakistan are civil. So if zardari is found to have stolen money, he’d just have to pay it back and no prison sentence? Because my understanding, after listening to aitzaz, is that the difference between civil and criminal is that in criminal cases there is a prison sentence if you are found guilty.
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
^^^
You may consider Atitaz Ahsan honest or someone with integrity. That is your problem. For me he is liar, opportunist, selfish, deceiver, and corrupt. I am not saying that Atitaz do not know constitution, but being dishonest and liar he is twisting the wording of constitution to fool masses. Anyhow, you surely have every right to disagree with what I am writing neither I would insist that you agree with what I wrote. I am writing from what I know and I believe what I am writing is accurate (to the best of my knowledge and belief): Thus I am writing again:
[As for Musharraf, there are no chances of any civil cases against him. Even though no criminal case can be initiated against Musharraf, only cases that people talk about are:
Murder of Bugti, Murder of BeNazir, Action and killing of Lal-Building terrorists, Partial Martial law on 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] November 2007, Actions and killing of Al-Q and Taliban ... all mentioned cases are Criminal cases if gets initiated.
If you know of any other case that can be initiated against Musharraf that Atitaz was referring to, please point them out.]
Criminal cases are between ‘State’ and ‘party (individual or group)’. Conviction can lead to prison sentence or fine plus prison.
Civil cases are between two parties (that party could be individual, group or state). Result is normally fine, reimbursement of cost plus return of property.
Usually, cases are civil as well as criminal. For instance, in UK if someone hit me directly and damaged my car than his hitting me would be criminal case and damaging my car would be civil case. He would go to jail for hitting me (if found guilty), but would be compensating me for damaging my car (if found guilty). If found guilty in both cases than he would compensate me for damaging my car and would go to prison for hitting me. I can also sue him (civil case) for hitting me and he would be required to compensate me for hitting me.
Note: I would complain to police for both, but police (on behalf of state) would initiate case against him for ‘hitting me’ (That is criminal case ‘state against him’ for hitting me).
For getting compensation for damaging my car, police could become witness but would not sue him (as it would be civil case). It would be me who would have to go to court and sue him for damages. I can also sue him in civil court for damages against injuries. (That would be civil case ‘me against him’ for damages).
BB/Zardari case in Switzerland:
Swiss government case against BB/Zardari was criminal. Crime was money laundry.
Pakistan government case in Switzerland against BB/Zardari was civil. Case was that money laundered by BB/Zardari was stolen money belonging to Pakistan and thus Pakistan wants that money returned. [Pakistan withdrew this civil case from Swiss court in 2008 and it is this case Supreme Court want to get re-initiated by sending a letter to Swiss authority],
Anyhow, leaving aside the nature of case, that is forgetting that case in Switzerland was civil or criminal and regardless of Zardari can claim any immunity on those cases or not ... there is no denial that: Pakistan Supreme Court asked Pakistan government to reinitiate Swiss case by sending letter to Swiss authority.
Now, for government to say that they would not reinitiate the case by sending letter to Swiss court means only two things:
1: Government blatantly telling Supreme Court that they damn care about Court’s directions regardless of Court’s directions are constitutionally right or wrong.
2: Government think that Supreme Court judges do not understand and cannot interpret constitutional laws and thus are wrongly directing government to write letters to Swiss Courts, whereas they (Gillani and his advisers) can understand and interpret constitutional laws better than Supreme Court judges and thus have right to ignore Supreme Court directions.
In both situations, government (Gillani as head of government) is guilty of ‘contempt of court’.
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
I am watching Kamran Khan's prog and they are showing his earlier stance and his statement from today and he has taken a U turn.
So being PM's lawyer changed everything?
will provide link as soon as I get it.
If you watch his any program of three years before , You will find it the same .
I hope you can under stand the different between a common man and a lawyer .
His previous statement were as a common man / leader and this time he representing a lawyer .
Re: Aitezaz Ahsan’s U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity
Ah, charactter assasination 
the best past time of Pakistanis. Anyone you don’t agree with has to be with the devil or they’ll agree with you. Very good.
The guy was being offered Prime ministership but turned it down. Has made many sacrifices for the same judiciary but since he seems to have a different point of view, he’s selfish, opportunist, curropt, etc etc. Tell me, why are you going after Aitzaz so agressively? He can’t fool the free and fair judiciary so let’s just wait until SC gives its verdict.