We can avoid such a possibility though, only if we make our judiciary & legal system so strong that would leave no chance for any foreign elements to play havoc with our internal affairs through using our own laws & law makers. We can do this by strictly following the laws ourselves. NO ONE must be above the law. NO ONE must be allowed to play with the consittution of Pakistan, neither external nor internal forces. NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT!!!
That is what everyone want for our beloved country, i believe current situation although not ideal one but is marked improvement.
Current government is though, highly incompetent and corrupt still better then however well meaning Generals regime, thanks to vibrant media and judicial activism (both has crossed lines at time though).
I am certainly want current system to work (but system does not mean a person), the 18 amendment is good thing for Pakistan but it has certain flaws which to be addressed either by Parliament of through juridical rulings.
Now PMLN has come out and told the SC to back off.
Ahsan says his party will not accept SC judgment
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Claims invisible force trying to pit parliament against judiciary; an eye-opening interview with PML-N spokesman
By Ahmad Noorani
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) has officially stated that the judiciary can lose its respect and its role will become controversial if it hears the petitions, challenging the 18th Amendment passed by an overwhelming majority of the elected parliament.
Clearly and openly backtracking from the PML-N’s previous stance of safeguarding the independence of the judiciary, PML-N’s official spokesman Ahsan Iqbal while talking to The News said that on the question of interpretation of the 18th Amendment his party would only accept the decision of parliament.
At one point Ahsan said: “the PML-N will not accept the Supreme Court’s judgment” but subsequently he changed his statement to “the PML-N will only accept the decision of parliament.” “See, what parliament has done is a grand national consensus and the judiciary should respect it,” Ahsan replied at one point while talking to The News.
Ahsan was asked that if the Supreme Court gives a judgment on the interpretation of
some of the controversial clauses of the 18th Amendment would his party accept it wholeheartedly or not. He replied: “the PML-N will only accept the decision of parliament, which has already been delivered in the form of the passage of this amendment in the National Assembly and the Senate. The verdict of parliament will be accepted and respected by all and sundry.”
Ahsan said that the 18th Amendment was not an ordinary amendment but it was a mega national political consensus and was approved by all the political parties with unprecedented harmony. Ahsan went on to say that the 18th Amendment was in fact a new social contract.
On the question regarding the acceptance of the apex court’s judgment Ahsan Iqbal further said: “By dragging the issue of the 18th Amendment into the courts the judiciary will come face to face with all the political forces of the country,” and added: “By indulging in this the judiciary can lose its respect, its role will become controversial and it will be completely isolated.”
Right after saying these words Ahsan immediately declared that the present crisis was being sponsored by invisible forces, which wanted to come to power on the props of others. By crisis Ahsan was referring to the filing of petitions in the Supreme Court and the ongoing national debate on the question of judicial review and apex court’s powers to review or strike down any law or constitutional amendments.
While Ahsan was taking a new line, his party had formally submitted serious and severe objections during the proceedings of the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms (PCCR) against the sitting federal law minister and the attorney general in the new proposed judicial commission as its members had declared it against the independence of judiciary.
Ahsan stated that in fact there was a force, which was upset because of the creation of two powerful institutions; a powerful parliament and a powerful and independent judiciary. Without taking the name of the Pakistan Army, Ahsan further said that this force had only one solution to all its miseries and that was to bring these two institutions at the loggerheads.
“Only such a situation could help this force in achieving its objectives,” Ahsan said. Ahsan said that in making the 18th Amendment there was no innovation in the scheme of our Constitution rather it was the implementation of the Charter of Democracy (CoD). He said that mediamen who were now objecting to the 18th Amendment and its judiciary appointment- related clauses should keep this in mind that the CoD was signed in 2006 when there was no sign of any judicial crisis. This historic document remained in the market for more than three years but no one objected to any of the points raised in it.
Ahsan defended the clause relating to final approval of judges appointments recommended by the judicial commission by a parliamentary committee comprising politicians by saying that it would not be an approval but only parliamentary oversight.
He said that some elements in the media were claiming parliamentary oversight was only for judges’ appointment whereas it would be applicable to all constitutional appointments including the chief election commissioner. Ahsan further said that parliamentary oversight was not a unique thing and even in the present on-going process of reform in the Turkish constitution the method of parliamentary oversight was being adopted.
Ahsan was asked that as per the documents available with The News, the PML-N itself had objected that the law minister and the attorney general should not be members and instead the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association should be a member of the judicial commission, then why his party was backtracking from its stance.
Ahsan was of the view that the stance taken in the meetings of the PCCR was the point of view of the party at that time. “Now as the amendment has been passed by parliament so what I am saying right now is the present and final view of my party.”
Ahsan at one stage said that clauses regarding judges’ appointment were later modified only in accordance with the CoD but when asked about the deadlock in case of equal votes in the judicial commission was highlighted by the media he (Ahsan) did not agree.
However, when reminded acknowledgement of this fact had even been admitted in the PML-N’s note of reiteration submitted in the PCCR, Ahsan admitted the fact.
On the question that it was widely believed in concerned circles of Islamabad that the 18th Amendment’s clauses relating to empowering the party chiefs were in fact incorporated after the agreement in a secret meeting of the top two or three leaders of the PPP and the PML-N, Ahsan rejected the allegation saying everything was decided in a committee comprising members from all the political parties.
Asked that vote of a parliamentarian for a constitutional amendment was in fact a vote of his or her conscience so why the parliamentarians had been bound to follow the instructions of the parliamentary party chief, Ahsan admitted that this clause was not right.
He said that this clause was the result of the circumstances faced by the political forces in the nineties and repeated events of floor crossing. Ahsan said that according to his opinion this and some similar clauses were inserted in the Constitution for the time being and these would be removed after a few years, as the country’s political system would achieve some maturity.
On the question why the proceedings of the PCCR were kept highly confidential while the process of legislation or constitution making had always been kept open for public debate during all of its steps, Ahsan said that if the proceedings of the committee had been kept open, the political forces would have never reached any agreement.
When asked if it was such a controversial amendment that not a single clause of the whole amendment was discussed in any house of parliament in detail and members voted only according to the orders of their party’s leadership, Ahsan said that it happened, as the issues were already discussed in detail during the PCCR meetings having representation of all the parties, which were secret.
Ahsan was short of words when asked to give a single example from anywhere in the world where such secret and confidential proceedings were held to make a constitution or constitutional amendment.
Well the political parties are right. Even though the Supreme Court has the final say on all Amendments of the Constitution, nothing in the 18th Amendment violates the letter and spirit of the constitution. Rather it enhances and strengthens the different aspects of democracy.
I don’t know maybe you have comprehension problem, I posted relevant articles of the Constitution which clearly states that courts have no power to strike down the constitutional amendments, and its say that power of the Parliament is unlimited.
I will repost it here again for your benefit.
BTW, I have no beloved leaders & just b/c you don’t like current leaders doesn’t mean the system should destroyed.
As i also said that current system how imperfect it is, still better then any military dictatorship.
On other side if someone has problem due to his own crimes, let him face the music. System is not name of Zardari.
Regardless what you mentioned it has happened in many countries including india that courts does strikes down constitutional amendments, so it is still do able. Even recently Italian Supreme court has done same thing so there is nothing novel about it.
On other side you are keeping parroting so called immunity without even bothering if there is genuine problem with that person or not.
I would love to accept him as long as you or someone willing to enlighten us that he is man of good character.
Why not defend him on ground of his character and merit??
As i also said that current system how imperfect it is, still better then any military dictatorship.
On other side if someone has problem due to his own crimes, let him face the music. System is not name of Zardari.
Regardless what you mentioned it has happened in many countries including india that courts does strikes down constitutional amendments, so it is still do able. Even recently Italian Supreme court has done same thing so there is nothing novel about it.
On other side you are keeping parroting so called immunity without even bothering if there is genuine problem with that person or not.
I would love to accept him as long as you or someone willing to enlighten us that he is man of good character.
Why not defend him on ground of his character and merit??
If the courts interfere in working of the Parliament & violate the laws the judges will be booted out b/c right now all parties are on the same side. What do you think the court is going to do? Send CJ to implement his own courts verdict that clearly violates the very Constitution that his court should be protecting?
Btw, its funny that you're argument now has come down to whether or not Zardari is man of good character. He is politician & I don't expect him to have good character b/c there are no saints in politics. I would, however, measure him with same yardstick as I would measure any other politicians, including NS. Also, he was elected so he has law and legitimacy on his side. This is how things work in democracy & whatever you or I say is irrelevant.
By the way his immunity has nothing to with constitutional amendments, as it was always part of constitution all the courts need to do is to decide.
Without NRO, he was ineligible to contest the election on that nomination day, since NRO was strucked down by court, would it effect is eligibility and subsequent election.
Now lest talk about 18th amendment, there are only two contentious area of 18th amendment:-
Political parties are no longer requires any internal elections, this means though they are called champions of democracy, need not to respect democratic system at their own parties.
Mind you that both PML and PPP does not have culture of internal election and all office bearers are nominated.
The head of party is empowered to send any member of parliament out if he feels not faithful.
This one very serious one as you can see, head of pary might not been elected by party, or even not a member of parliament on his own, yet an MP who is elected by people of his constituency could lose his seat.
If this is the case what is purpose of parliament, these two or three party heads deiced everything.
I am sure at least 2nd one would not able to stand a judicial scrutiny. but it is only in interested of so call feudal wish to control our destiny.
I am sure everyone would agree with courts if they strike down these kind of nonsense.
CJ has the right to shoot down any part of 18th amendment if it contradicts the constitution.
Sorry, the CJ is not the institution & nor does he have arbitrary powers to strike out what he doesn't like in the constitution. The SC is the institution, and the SC has no power to strike down the Constitutional Amendment according to article 239. If it does that would be in violation of the Constitution & the reason for removal of the judges of the SC.
If the courts interfere in working of the Parliament & violate the laws the judges will be booted out b/c right now all parties are on the same side. What do you think the court is going to do? Send CJ to implement his own courts verdict that clearly violates the very Constitution that his court should be protecting?
Btw, its funny that you're argument now has come down to whether or not Zardari is man of good character. He is politician & I don't expect him to have good character b/c there are no saints in politics. I would, however, measure him with same yardstick as I would measure any other politicians, including NS. Also, he was elected so he has law and legitimacy on his side. This is how things work in democracy & whatever you or I say is irrelevant.
Sir the only CJ was sent home was Sajjad Ali Shah, but that time supreme court was divided, and so called establishment was in NS favor.
But today courts is united, establishment is natural, and Zaradari has no moral position.
If CJ strike down two controversial amendment, no one would cry accept NS and Zardari as they could not black mail members of parliament.
With due respect it was always my position (just look at my previous posts) that immunity drives from his character. And article 62 is very clear anyone aspirant of public office should be person of good character.
Just on Wednesday the courts has rejected application of two former MPs for using fake degree previously.
If you take out NRO, then Mr. Zardari was not eligible to take part of presidential election on that day under article 62. (he was convicted by swiss court as appealing).
NRO or no NRO he is the president who has immunity from prosecution. His election cannot be called in question on any ground regardless of how and under what circumstances he was elected.
As for broader issue of democracy in political parties, that I agree is a problem, but its just not problem in Pakistan. Its problem in every South Asian country including India. Every political parties in Pakistan centers around personality. You want to change that run for office or start your own party, but it doesn’t surprise me that those in power are trying to protect their on power base.
Sorry, the CJ is not the institution & nor does he have arbitrary powers to strike out what he doesn't like in the constitution. The SC is the institution, and the SC has no power to strike down the Constitutional Amendment according to article 239. If it does that would be in violation of the Constitution & the reason for removal of the judges of the SC.
Agree that it is SC, not CJ, but CJ been head of the SC would play important part on this.
Again talk about violation of article 239, it is not only 239, there is few more article which mention that parliament could not amend constitution conflicting against Quran. Sunnah and democratic freedom.
Now you have at least one article where MP become puppets, so there is certainly that court do something about it.
Sir the only CJ was sent home was Sajjad Ali Shah, but that time supreme court was divided, and so called establishment was in NS favor.
But today courts is united, establishment is natural, and Zaradari has no moral position.
If CJ strike down two controversial amendment, no one would cry accept NS and Zardari as they could not black mail members of parliament.
With due respect it was always my position (just look at my previous posts) that immunity drives from his character. And article 62 is very clear anyone aspirant of public office should be person of good character.
Just on Wednesday the courts has rejected application of two former MPs for using fake degree previously.
If you take out NRO, then Mr. Zardari was not eligible to take part of presidential election on that day under article 62. (he was convicted by swiss court as appealing).
1st, funny that you would bring up article 62. Do you know who inserted article 62 in the Constitution? Yea, Zia-ul-Haq. It was not originally part of the constitution.
2nd, what is good character & how do you quantify that?
3rd, regardless of how he was elected, his election now cannot be called into question.
BTW, degree requirement isn't there anymore. It was thrown out by your beloved the CJ.
I agree is a problem, but its just not problem in Pakistan. Its problem in every South Asian country including India. Every political parties in Pakistan centers around personality. You want to change that run for office or start your own party, but it doesn't surprise me that those in power are trying to protect their on power base.
Good!
At least we agree on something, since you know that those in the power trying to protect their interest by fair or foul means.
You can give them all the leverages to do so, why not give a bit to court also to fail or least blunt their nefarious designs?
All i can say i have no personal enmity against Zardari or NS, (both are together when come to mutual interests), unlike NS / Zardari (they could stay in power as long as they could get required seat. CJ has limited term so i do not worry about him.
Previously courts always very cosy with governments, resulting there was no check an balance. Current tension between administration and judiciary is good for people.
As parliament is not keeping government in check, at least judiciary is doing this.
1st, funny that you would bring up article 62. Do you know who inserted article 62 in the Constitution? Yea, Zia-ul-Haq. It was not originally part of the constitution.
2nd, what is good character & how do you quantify that?
3rd, regardless of how he was elected, his election now cannot be called into question.
BTW, degree requirement isn't there anymore. It was thrown out by your beloved the CJ.
Sorry sir
Please keep your facts right, the degree requirement was thrown out by Supreme court bunch head by Justice Doger the fake and puppet CJ
1st, funny that you would bring up article 62. Do you know who inserted article 62 in the Constitution? Yea, Zia-ul-Haq. It was not originally part of the constitution.
2nd, what is good character & how do you quantify that?
3rd, regardless of how he was elected, his election now cannot be called into question.
BTW, degree requirement isn't there anymore. It was thrown out by your beloved the CJ.
So what is your case?
Article 62 is still a valid part of constitution, and ambiguity in defining good character itself would give court sweeping power to interpret it.
To me getting rid of him is not an issue, let court deiced if they want to. The important thing is couple with judicial activism and vibrant media.
It is getting more and more difficult for Zardaris of tomorrow to loot our country with impunity.