Re: EMERGENCY IMPOSED IN PAKISTAN
But unfortunately, he holds both Offices. NS was a prime minister. President reserves the right to declare emergency. The PCO is the set of rules to be followed while the constitution is suspended. Tell me if the constitution has been suspended then what set of rules is to be followed. This is what the PCO is constituted for.233. Power to suspend Fundamental Rights, etc., during emergency period. (1) Nothing contained in Articles 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 24 shall, while a proclamation of Emergency is in force, restrict the power of the State as defined in Article 7 to make any law or to take any executive action which it would, but for the provisions in the said Articles, be competent to make or to take, but any law so made shall to the extent of the incompetency, cease to have effect, and shall be deemed to have been repealed, at the time when the Proclamation is revoked or has ceased to be in force. What this IMO is saying is that once the emergency is revoked or expired the PCO becomes ineffective otherwise the executive can formulate extra-ordinary laws to meet the emergency situation.What I do agree with is that the President cannot dismiss any judge of the Supreme court with requiring an SJC inquiry into it even if the consitution has been suspended.209 Supreme Judicial Council. (1) There shall be a Supreme Judicial Council of Pakistan, in this Chapter referred to as the Council. (2) The Council shall consist of, (a) the Chief Justice of Pakistan; (b) the two next most senior Judges of the Supreme Court; and (c) the two most senior Chief Justices of High Courts. Explanation:- For the purpose of this clause, the inter se seniority of the Chief Justices of the High Courts shall be determined with reference to their dates of appointment as Chief Justice [231] [otherwise than as acting Chief Justice], and in case the dates of such appointment are the same, with reference to their dates of appointment as Judges of any of the High Courts.(3) If at any time the Council is inquiring into the capacity or conduct of a Judge who is a member of the Council, or a member of the Council is absent or is unable to act due to illness or any other cause, then (a) if such member is a Judge of the Supreme Court, the Judge of the Supreme Court who is next in seniority below the Judges referred to in paragraph (b) of clause (2), and (b) if such member is the Chief Justice of a High Court; the Chief Justice of another High Court who is next in seniority amongst the Chief Justices of the remaining High Courts, shall act as a member of the Council in his place. (4) If, upon any matter inquired into by the Council, there is a difference of opinion amongst its members, the opinion of the majority shall prevail, and the report of the Council to the President shall be expressed in terms of the view of the majority. (5) If, on information [231A] [from any source, the Council or] the President is of the opinion that a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court, (a) may be incapable of properly performing the duties of his office by reason of physical or mental incapacity; or (b) may have been guilty of misconduct, the President shall direct the Council to [231B] , or the Council may, on its own motion,] inquire into the matter. (6) If, after inquiring into the matter, the Council reports to the President that it is of the opinion, (a) that the Judge is incapable of performing the duties of his office or has been guilty of misconduct, and (b) that he should be removed from office, the President may remove the Judge from office. (7) A Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court shall not be removed from office except as provided by this Article. (8) The Council shall issue a code of conduct to be observed by Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts. All in all, whne he did move to the SJC it was thrown out without even looking into the content on assumption of malafide intentions. So a persons innocence depends on the accusers intentions by their verdict. This was the biggest joke in the history of justice perhaps.I am not saying what is happening is all kosher but what solution do we have out of this. If a democratic leader decides to vaporize insurgency then its fine but if a President of military stature says the same its wrong. This makes me think our people really have no sense of right or wrong but their preception of right or wrong depends on their liking for a person or authority. When this is how people of our country perceive justice then they should be ready to persevere for the injustice their perception breeds as well. They lean against the law when they do not like someone but are willing to bend and twist or overrun laws when it is to their liking because they have political support for someone.