CJ confrontational on 18th Amendment?

[tipusulatn]

@shami2k

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\04\22\story_22-4-2010_pg1_2

Zardari enjoys constitutional indemnity: SHC

KARACHI: A division bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC) on Wednesday dismissed a petition challenging the eligibility of President Asif Ali Zardari.

The SHC bench consisting of SHC Chief Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmani and Justice Zahid Hamid observed that the 2008 Presidential Election could not be challenged as the president, under the constitution, enjoyed indemnity from court proceedings and could be only removed by impeachment in parliament.

The petition was filed by Maulvi Iqbal Haider Advocate, in which former presidential candidates Justice (r) Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid Secretary General Mushahid Hussain and the chief election commissioner were also made parties. The petitioner argued that according to the Supreme Court judgement on the National Reconciliation Ordinance, all those cases quashed under the NRO were restored to the position on October 5, 2007.

He submitted that President Zardari was also a beneficiary of the NRO and his nomination papers be re-scrutinised by the Election Commission of Pakistan, as the cases against the president stand revived after the SC judgement. The court, after hearing the arguments, dismissed the petition. app

High court is not right forum to interpret the constitution, it is job of supreme court of Pakistan. I would not surprise if Supreme court decided to examine the issue as and when someone decided to challenge it.

After all there are issues Supreme court need to examine arising from 18th amendents:-

1. Parliamentary commission for Judicial appointments.
2. Immunity for politicians in future corruption cases (new ahtisab bill protect them from prosecutions as they claim good faith).
3. If it is according to sprit of constitution and democracy head of party (whether elected or not) allow to terminate any elected Members of Parliament. Would it effect human rights of electorate who voted this person?
4. If constitutional amendment regarding non binding to political parties for internal democratic election process is valid (mind you these leaders preaching democracy to others but do not want same for their own parties.

I am sure one could have sympathy with parliamentary role with appointment of judges, but no one with any common sense could except 2-4).

We are in for interesting time now.