Constitutional package would take several months to get through.

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

I hope not. The quicker the EX CJ and the other PCO judges are restored the quicker government can start on their manifesto promise of ‘Roti, Kapda, Aur Makan’.

**PPP package may take months and even fizzle out

**The constitutional package, unfolded by the PPP, would take several months to get through parliament, if, at all, it succeeds in earning parliamentary approval, PPP and PML-N leaders say.

“What I gathered from our meeting with Law Minister Farooq Naek in Lahore the other day is that the PPP feels no urgency and is poised to take a long time to get the package passed from parliament,” a PML-N stalwart who attended the session told The News.

He said as far as the PML-N was concerned, its seven-member committee headed by Raja Zafarul Haq would finalise its deliberations on the package and give its recommendations to the PPP during the current week.

The PML-N leader said there was no possibility of a consensus between the two major coalition partners because their positions were fundamentally different. “We want restoration of the deposed judges through a National Assembly resolution while the PPP desires everyone to be involved in the approval of the package. We insist on having no link between the two but the PPP holds the other view.”

On the other hand, a senior PPP leader said it would not be advisable to expect a quick fix because when divergent views persisted on a key issue, time would be naturally needed to tide over them.

He said to show haste in reinstating the sacked justices or clearing the 80-point package would not be prudent. Thorough debate and discussion is the only answer to evolve a consensus, he added.

However, another PML-N leader said his party was of the view that the PPP wanted to drag the sacked judges’ return to an extent where, it believed, it would become a non-issue. The PPP wants to achieve this goal, he said.

He added the PPP was unmindful of the fact that the matter would spill over to the streets after the lawyers’ community would launches its long march on June 10. It is not ready to be watchful of consequences of “street activism”, he said.

“By presenting the constitutional package in the National Assembly, we want to set the ball rolling to amend the Constitution to make it parliamentary from the existing presidential form,” another PPP leader said.

However, the PML-N leader said the PPP does not realise that when the coalition lacks a two-thirds majority in the Senate, how the government would be able to push the package through the Upper House.

Both the PPP and the PML-N, he said, know that they cannot pass the 18th constitutional amendment in the Senate. “What is then the fun in presenting (the package) in the National Assembly?”

The coalition, the PML-N leader said, can easily break the lingering logjam by passing a resolution in the National Assembly and restore the deposed justices immediately. This, he said, would swiftly bring calm and normalcy to Pakistan.

He said the fate of the present package would be no different from a number of constitutional amendments, moved in both houses of parliament by private members, which lapsed because these could not attract the required two-thirds majority in either house.

2

As the details of constitutional package are revealed…it is becoming more and more clear that this package is nothing more than an attempt to completely destroy the independence of judiciary…

As Farooq Naek ponints out that he has single handedly prepared the constitutional package in consultation with Mr. Zardari…it is becoming more and more evident that Zardari wants to become the new dictator replacing Musharraf…and wants to make judiciary an extended arm of the executive…

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=117147

The PPP’s malevolent bill

Part I Legal eye

Saturday, June 07, 2008
Babar Sattar

The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad. He is a Rhodes scholar and has an LL.M from Harvard Law School

“We cannot work with anyone who has suspended the constitution, imposed emergency rule, and oppressed the judiciary. That is why we are holding the long march.” No, these are not the words of Aitzaz Ahsan, but those of Benazir Bhutto who planned the PPP’s “long march for democracy” after Gen Musharraf’s unconstitutional acts of Nov 3, 2007. With Benazir Bhutto, Amin Fahim, Sherry Rehman, Nahid Khan, Safdar Abbasi and others placed under house arrest in Lahore and other prominent leaders such as Yousuf Raza Gilani, Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Qamar Zaman Kaira arrested while on the road, the PPP’s long march did not amount to much. But it was rooted in the principle that the PPP deemed the general’s actions of Nov 3 illegal and abhorrent and stood firmly against them. The Constitution Amendment Bill drafted by the PPP now seeks to renounce that principle by implicitly indemnifying the general’s Nov 3 actions.

Law minister Farooq Naek claims that he has single-handedly drawn up this draft bill under Asif Zardari’s guidance. His assertion must be true for the bill is ambiguous and shoddily drafted. But poor draftsmanship and lack of constitutional prudence is the least of our concerns at the moment. This draft bill is not just ambiguous, but malicious for (i) it indemnifies the Nov 3 actions of the general and (ii) if passed, it would mutilate the basic structure of our constitution by turning the judicial branch into an extension of the executive for all times to come. The PPP has stated that this bill is not ‘sacrosanct’ and will be subject to change in view of comments received from coalition partners and the public. Nevertheless, as an embodiment of the PPP’s base position on (a) the treatment to be meted out to dictators and usurpers, (b) the desirable form of ‘judicial independence’, (c) the preferred balance of power between the pillars of the state, and (d) acceptable schism between words and actions, this draft bill is shocking.

Let us recap the issues in question. The legal fraternity has been crying hoarse that the choice of constitutional amendment as a ‘modality’ to undo the mess created by the general will, by implication, amount to accepting his actions as legal and underwriting the assumption that the constitution can be amended through the barrel of a gun. An illegal order is simply void and doesn’t need to be reversed through law making. Setting such a precedent could come back to bite us in the future just like the judicially manufactured ‘doctrine of necessity’ continues to haunt us today. But this concern is about future dictators obligating democratic forces to manufacture a two-thirds majority in parliament to bypass their edicts. Let us turn to the present. The PPP has tried to be cute about the indemnity issue by not addressing it directly in the draft bill, while imbedding a legal cover for the general’s actions in the language of the proposed Article 270CC that talks about restoration of the superior court judges.

Article 270CC states that “notwithstanding anything contained in any provision of the constitution, the Oath of Judges Order 2007, the High Court Judges Order 2007, the Supreme Court Judges Order 2007 and any other law for the time being in force or judgment of any court including a high court and the Supreme Court, the judges of Supreme Court and high courts including the chief justice of Supreme Court and chief justices of high courts who had ceased to continue to hold office in pursuance of the Oath of Judges Order, 2007, dated the 3rd day of November, 2007, shall stand reinstated/restored to the position and seniority they were holding on the 2nd day of November, 2007.” The language of this article assumes the legality of the Oath of Judges Order, 2007, and affirms that the deposed judges had ceased to hold judicial office, before creating a constitutional carve-out or exception to restore them.

Even if a constitutional amendment was the PPP’s preferred route to restoration, to pre-empt a stay order from the Dogar court and avoid legal confusion as claimed by the PPP, the language of the restoration article could have stated that the general’s actions of Nov 3 – including the forced removal and illegal detention of judges – were illegal, and notwithstanding Article 6, the PCO judges’ initial oath of office under Articles 178 and 194 of the constitution and the Supreme Court order of Nov 3 (rendered by the full court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry declaring the general’s acts of Nov 3 as unconstitutional), the judges who swore an oath under the general’s PCO and those appointed after Nov 3 will be retained. Such a construction of the restoration clause would acknowledge the illegality of the general’s actions and the judges who chose to swear by him, while restoring the deposed judges and also retaining the PCO judges (that the PPP wishes to do for questionable reasons). What it would not do is grant general indemnity to a dictator’s actions by assuming their legality.

**More shocking than the indemnity being granted to the general is PPP’s proposed model of judicial independence. The draft bill proposes new procedures to appoint and remove judges. The proposed Articles 177A and 193A provide for the creation of a commission comprising members of the judiciary and also including the law minister to make judicial nominations. The prime minister would be provided two names for each vacant position and he would elect one nominee and forward his/her name to a joint parliamentary committee, comprising members of the treasury and the opposition, for confirmation. This process vests in a parliamentary committee the right to debate and confirm judicial appointments and is an improvement over the previous opaque system despite the fact that it wrests away the judiciary’s sway over judicial appointments.

The mechanism for recruiting judges, while important in terms of electing the right people to serve the system of justice, only has a small part to play in determining the independence of a judge once appointed. It is the security of tenure and protections against arbitrary removal that fortify judicial independence and empower a judge to act without considerations of fear or favour. And it is this crucial security that the draft bill threatens to take away from the judicial branch. The new Article 209 proposes to disband the Supreme Judicial Council (comprising the chief justice of Pakistan, two senior most judges of the Supreme Court and the two chief justices of high courts) that is authorized to investigate charges of judicial misconduct and remove judges accordingly. This council is to be replaced by a judicial commission that will consist of a “non-politicized” retired chief justice in the chair, and two “non-politicized” retired judges of the Supreme Court and one “non-politicized” retired judge from each high court.**

The members of the commission will be appointed by the government on such terms and conditions as determined in its discretion. Thus, a body of retired judges, serving at the pleasure (read whims) of the executive with no constitutional tenure and security of service shall sit in judgment over which judge is fit to serve. This provision will constitutionally empower the ruling party to stuff this judicial (witch-hunt) commission with loyalist retirees and once they initiate an investigation into the conduct of a judge, such judge will be sent on forced leave during the period of such investigation. Thus, the sword of Damocles will continue to hang over all judges at all times who would be well advised to remain invisible and compliant to avoid the ire of the government. Even if the witch-hunt commission does not eventually remove a judge who dares to act independently, the threshold for initiating an investigation against a judge is so low that the government would be able to manipulate the outcomes of matters he/she is ceased of by initiating an inquiry and sending him/her on forced leave.

From a historical perspective, the malice of Pakistan’s judiciary has not been its ‘activism’ but the willing surrender of its duty to defend the constitution and protect fundamental rights of citizens against transgressions of the executive – more so in times when executive authority is annexed by a dictator. Sixty years after independence, under immense pressure from the bar and the public, the judiciary finally dared to question the whims of the general who monopolized the state’s executive authority. It was the possibility of creating a judiciary free from the shackles of the executive that fuelled the rule of law movement of the lawyers and civil society. And what lessons did the PPP draw from the movement? That the constitution needs to be amended and institutionalized restraints built-in so that the judiciary and individual activist (read miscreant) judges can be disciplined before their dissenting voices can stream-roll into a popular movement.

(To be concluded)

3

Yazdi bhaijan. If PPP want to remove the Unprecedented powers given to the Judiciary by Great President Musharaf, then who are we to argue against the Will of the electorate? Afterall, they have voted for PPP, led by Great Zardari.

God Bless democracy in Pakistan. Long may it continue. :)

4

Well Aalsi you need not worry as Mush is not going anywhere :slight_smile: so you can now rest assured..

http://www.dawn.com/2008/06/08/top1.htm

Musharraf ‘won’t resign’

ISLAMABAD, June 7: President Pervez Musharraf on Saturday declared in categorical terms that he had no immediate plan to resign or go into exile, but said he was ready to face impeachment and would accept any decision taken by the parliament.

“I won’t resign in the current situation. I will live and die in Pakistan, there is no other way,” President Musharraf told a select group of journalists in his first interaction with the media since the imposition of emergency on Nov 3 last year.

Rumours that President Musharraf is on his way out have been in circulation in the country for the past few weeks and on May 29 the rumour was so strong that it brought public and commercial life to a virtual standstill. The same night President Musharraf hosted a farewell dinner for former Punjab governor Lt-Gen (retd) Khalid Maqbool. On that occasion he rubbished all such rumours.

However, the rumour mills continued to grind, forcing President Musharraf to come out with his version.

The president, however, indicated that he would not like to be reduced to a ceremonial head of state. “I will keep watching. I can’t become a useless vegetable” he said, adding: “If I see that I don’t have any role to play, then it is better to play golf and take rest.”

He declared that he would not make any judgment under pressure and that he “cannot preside over the downfall of Pakistan”.

Showing anger over reports that he was planning to leave for Turkey, President Musharraf said: “I don’t have a house anywhere outside Pakistan. And I don’t want to have one.

“Where is the aircraft that had come to take me out of the country?” the president wondered, referring to a newspaper report last week that claimed an aircraft had landed at Islamabad to take President Musharraf abroad.

He asked his opponents to bring an impeachment resolution against him in the parliament if they wanted to get rid of him. “My opponents should try to remove me through vote and not through abuses.”

The constitution provided mechanism for impeaching a president, he said. “Do it amicably and politely,” the president said, adding: “Parliament is supreme. I will abide by whatever the parliament decides. Let assemblies decide.”

President Musharraf alleged that the rumours about his fate were being spread under a planned conspiracy. “I know the direction as I am the target (of these rumours),” he said, adding such rumours were only affecting the people of Pakistan and creating “uncertainty and confusion”.

Moreover, he added, such rumours were damaging the economy and threatening foreign investment.

A visibly upset president also dismissed claims by leaders of Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) that the presidency was hatching conspiracies against the coalition government. “As the president of Pakistan, I am performing my functions according to the Constitution. There is no interference from my side whatsoever. No conspiracy is being hatched at the Presidency.”

President Musharraf said all the governments — at the centre and provinces — were functioning independently.

JUDGES’ ISSUE: The president once again defended the imposition of emergency and the sacking of judges on Nov 3 last year. However, he said he had only sent a reference against Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and had not dismissed 60 other judges. “They themselves did not take oath under the PCO and quit their offices.”

He said if the Parliament reinstated the judges, he would accept it.

EX-SERVICEMEN: The president came down hard on the Ex-Servicemen Society of Pakistan, which has been calling for his trial for suspending the Constitution.

Pervez Musharraf the society of “violating the military’s culture and ethos”.

He dismissed the society as a private organisation, asserting that it had nothing to do with the Army.

The president reserved harsh words for Lt-Gen (retd) Jamshed Gulzar Kiani, a former corps commander, accusing him of violating the National Secrets Act and confidentiality rules by speaking openly on important issues like the Kargil war.

“He is letting the Pakistan Army down,” the president said, adding the concerned quarters should take note of these violations.

KARGIL COMMISSION: The president said the government had a right to form a commission to probe the Kargil war, but at the same time, he averred, the issue could not be debated as it involved “national secrets and confidentialities”.

LAL MASJID: President Musharraf said the Lal Masjid operation was carried out after persistent appeals by the people. He said the “activities of Lal Masjid militants” were bringing a bad name to the country and everyone was criticising the government for not taking any action against them.

He denied that any chemical weapons were used during the operation.

“Hats off to those who carried out the operation and the nation should also salute them for doing a national service.”

DR A. Q. KHAN: President Musharraf did not talk much about Dr A. Q. Khan and his recent statements in which he claimed that he had given the confessional statement in 2004 about nuclear proliferation under pressure.

“I will only say that whatever he (Dr Khan) is saying is absolutely wrong. I would not speak on the issue as it would be against national interests.”

JOINT SESSION: In response to a question, the president said that he would only address a joint session of parliament if the speaker and all political parties assured him that they would listen to him with discipline.

“I don’t consider it a requirement” was the president’s reply when a questioner asked if it was no constitutionally binding on him to address the joint sitting of parliament at the beginning of each parliamentary year.

ECONOMIC ISSUES: The president said the country was going through a “critical” situation, but expressed a hope that things could be handled even now.

He said oil and food prices were on the surge throughout the world and Pakistan was also facing its effects. He admitted that there had been a delay on the part of the government to address these problems.

He termed terrorism and economy the biggest challenges for the country.

The president praised Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani who, according to him, was making serious efforts to steer the country out of crises.

“My support will always be with the prime minister. May he succeed in steering the country out of the current crises.”

He said that he had no plan to take any step against the prime minister or the present coalition government. “I am not an imbalanced person that uses 58-2B.”

5

GoldenAsif bhaijan. He can always be impeached and ousted, as being said by Great Zardari. Won't he? :( :)

6

Re: Constitutional package would take several months to get through.

Oh no, now however will great ifti come back to head the SC and give us lower prices on food goods, 24/7 electricity, jobs, housing, and better infrastructure? :(

7

Aalsi, constitutional ammendments of this nature are not a joke…specially with regard to judiciary. May be our generations will regret these changes and will probably suffer in the hands of these power mafias who will consolidate themselves to the point of no return…

Sorry but article 209 was not incorporated by your illegal President Musharraf…this was a part of 1973 constitution. The significance of procedure laid down in aricle 209 for sacking a judge ensures a balance and ensures judiciary is not terrorized by the executive.

As far as parliament is concerned…I wish parliament can become independent…and a day will come when our country will be able to take the benefits of collective decision making…and can be saved from the the clutches of people like Pervaiz Musharraf, Zardari, Nawaz Sharif and Altaf Hussain…I am sure if it is freely left to the parliament they will decide what is best for the country…the problem is like Pervaiz Musharraf, Zardari also wants to use parliament as a rubber stamp…and parlimentarian are constantly under threat of being side lined if they speak their mind or take a principled stand…Our political leaders are basically dictatorial minded people…who use these parliamentarians as tissue papers…and personal slaves…

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/print1.asp?id=117287

The PPP’s malevolent bill

By Babar Sattar
6/8/2008
What would have happened to the rule of law movement had the PPP’s proposed amendments been a part of the Constitution in 2007? There would be no movement. The president would not need to unconstitutionally sack the Chief Justice on March 9, 2007, because he would have the constitutional authority to do so under Article 209. The government would not need to coerce and entice members of the Supreme Judicial Council to seal the fate of an ‘errant’ Chief Justice, because it would have the authority to compose a witchhunt commission that is predisposed to toeing the official line.** In such a neutered system of justice, the courts would be packed by judges groomed in the Dogar mould and the rulers of the day would never need to declare a coup against the judiciary as witnessed on Nov 3. If approved, the amended Article 209 alone will transform the basic structure of our Constitution that envisages the judicature as an equal and independent pillar of the state, by making it an appendage to the executive. **

The last few years have seen such extensive debate on the issue of appointment and removal of judges as never witnessed before. Such debates preceded the execution of the charter of democracy between the PPP and the PML-N, and consequently the appointment process streamlined in the charter, and now with some variation in the draft bill, endeavours to institute a transparent consultative process to appoint judges that includes the judiciary, the executive and parliament. Is it a sheer oversight then that the PPP opted for a removal process that leaves judges of superior courts at the mercy and whims of the executive?** Who would determine whether the members of the proposed witchhunt commission are ‘depoliticized’? What does the word even mean and is it capable of being translated into a judicially enforceable concept? And why leave parliament out of a removal process that supposedly aims to strengthen judicial accountability? If judges are appointed after extensive bipartisan scrutiny, why not allow parliament to impeach them with a two-third majority as happens in many other jurisdictions, including the United States? **

We have heard Asif Zardari repeat ad nauseam that the PPP is committed to strengthening the institution of judiciary and that focus on individuals in the context of restoration is misplaced. While the proposed removal process is indicative of the PPP’s approach to institutional independence of the judiciary, equally malicious is the duplicity in the words and deeds of the party when it comes to emphasis on individuals. While the PPP emphasizes de-linking the movement for judicial independence from the restoration of CJ Chaudhry, what it wants in reality is a shift of focus from the person of CJ Chaudhry in a manner that serves the person of Justice Dogar. That is why the draft bill includes three articles that have been drafted solely to return Justice Dogar to the office of the chief justice even in the aftermath of restoration. Under Article 179(2) the tenure of the chief justice will be capped at three years (or maybe five if the pressure from the PML-N and the lawyers doesn’t subside) to hastily show CJ Chaudhry the door after restoration.

Given that Justice Dogar reaches the age of superannuation on March 21, 2009, the retirement age of the judges of Supreme Court is being enhanced to 68 through Article 179(1), to give him a few more years as chief justice. But then there is the problem of Justice Javed Iqbal who was the second senior most judge on Nov 3 after CJ Chaudhry. While Justice Javed Iqbal was not invited to be a PCO judge he was offered a ceremonial position by the Musharraf regime that he took citing personal financial need. Now if all judges are restored, the CJ’s tenure is capped and the retirement age enhanced, Justice Dogar still won’t become CJ as Justice Javed Iqbal is not only senior but would also retire after Justice Dogar. Thus a proviso has been added to Article 270CC, stating that all judges would be restored, except a judge who has taken up another position with the government. Justice Javed Iqbal is the only such judge and so instead of including a long-winded fable in the proviso, Mr Naek could simply have stated that all judges except Justice Javed Iqbal will be restored.

The PPP’s draft bill has been a disappointment of enormous proportions. One the one hand it documents the double-speak of the PPP that enjoys taking jibes at the general as a populist measure while seeking to indemnify his felonies by amending the Constitution, and utters platitudes in favour of a strong judiciary while devouring its independence through law. On the other hand, the content of the draft bill suggests that the PPP has no intention of resolving the judicial gridlock. As an embodiment of the PPP’s policy on the issue of restoration of judges and judicial independence, this bill makes evident that the incumbent PPP leadership simply does not subscribe to the principles that have been driving the rule of law movement and the choice of constitutional amendment as a mode to restore judges is simply a smokescreen to defer the issue indefinitely.

To the extent that PPP’s policy on restoration is being defined by its desire to have a pliant ‘jiala’ court serve its government uninhibited by law and principles, it cannot afford to restore the deposed judges without amending Article 209 of the Constitution. Because** the moment the Nov 3 judiciary is restored, the Supreme Judicial Council under the existing Article 209 could be constituted to investigate the misconduct of the PCO judges, and consequently the leverage Zardari house enjoys in this regard might vanish in a moment along with its dreams of retaining a Dogar Court to look out for Mr Zardari’s legal interests (including the longevity of the NRO).** And then the constitutional amendment route has its advantages too. After all the PPP has never explicitly stated that it is opposed to restoring the judges and yet in theory it has now thrown the ball in the court of its coalition partners by handing them the malevolent draft bill.

The coalition partners, the lawyers, civil society and the media can now continue to debate the draft bill clause-by-clause, and once it is introduced in parliament, the debate and disagreement can continue till the cows come home.** Meanwhile, the deposed judges can hang in a limbo, the Dogar Court can stay in place, and Zardari House can continue to hold the reigns of the country.** During this period of foot-dragging in the name of consultation, the lawyers’ movement might die its own death due to fatigue. If that doesn’t happen and the long march does shake up the echelons of power, the immediate casualty will be General Musharraf. And such outcome might in itself take the wind out of the sails of the lawyers’ movement by providing an exhaust to this nation’s pent-up anger and emotion. And then PPP can take charge of the presidency as well while continuing its antics in parliament over the restoration issue.

Asif Zardari has written an intelligent script. But as a student of history and politics he should heed the lessons from General Musharraf’s recent experience and realize that in real life fairytales do not always end as desired. During the first half of 2007 there were ample opportunities for the general to read the writing on the wall and change course. Being the commando that he is, he sought to become infallible and consequently trapped himself in a corner where he now remains at the mercy of Mr Zardari and their US patrons. There is always a time for redemption, followed closely by unforgiving accountability. The pursuit of his self-scripted fairytale might appear to be the best option for Asif Zardari for the time being. But appearances can be deceptive. The safer option would be to reassess his options with a finger on a national pulse and make amends before time runs out.

(Concluded)

The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad. He is a Rhodes scholar and has an LL.M from Harvard Law School Email: [email protected]

8

Yazdi bhaijan. Are you suggesting that the electorate does not know what they are doing, and have brought Mafia into power through the freeest and fairest elections in Pakistan history?

Who are we to stop what the democratically electorate govt wants to do? Long may the democracy continue in Pakistan.

I can't wait for the constitutional package to be implemented. :)

;) Choose A Profession 4 Above Person ;)
9

Aalsi bhaijan....were you also as keen as today to get the condemned 8th and 17th ammendments implemented....by the democratically elected parliaments of that time....while I am not sure about 8th but I bet you rejoiced a lot for 17th....because it legalized your condemned illegal President at that time...too bad he became illegal after November 3rd again....so to rejoice on such ammendments may be is nothing new for you...but I am not sure your generations will share your enlightened vision....

10

I don't think we should expect anything good from PPP govt or Zardari. The man was , is & will always be a crook. He is there to look after his own interest and nothing else.

11

Re: Constitutional package would take several months to get through.

I don't think we should expect anything principled from the typical politicians, the people of morals, principles and ethics aren't even allowed to mature in the political system. It's more of the same, really.

Aalsi: Don't worry. We'll be ready to greet you with your new nick when Musharraf is kicked out.

12

yazdi bhaijan. You are indeed correct. The amendments are not a new thing, and will continue to happen. Who are we to argue against the will of the Parliament. :slight_smile:

God Bless the Democracy in Pakistan. Long may it continue. :k:

13

Aalsi mere pyarey bhai…don’t rejoice too much on the current ammendnent by Mr. Zardari…they are not meant to protect your favourite condemned illegal President…they are being done to create a new dictatorship for Mr. Zardari…your favourite dictator is going anyway…but a new dictatorship is being created by Mr. Zardari…and I am afraid NS is a new partner to this dictatorship…and togather they are fooling the nation with this new nora kushti…

14

yazdi bhaijan. No one is fooling the public. Are you suggesting that the public that voted in the freeest and fairest elections in Pakistan history do not know what they are doing? If the MNA’s are not happy with the Constitutional amendmenta, then they can vote against it. Won’t they?

The Parliament is supreme. Wouldn’t you agree. :slight_smile:

God Bless Democracy in Pakistan long may it continue. :k:

15

vigoratus bhaijan. Are you suggesting it is a waste of time holding elections in Pakistan?