I agree that CJ has crossed the line several times but, 1. tussle was started by Zardari who refused to implement PPP's election promise to restore judiciary and 2. the government has not left any stone unturned in order to irritate SC since the NRO decision.
Well, PPP did restore judiciary & in hindsight it was mistake. Now the SC is acting like chief executive running parallel a govt.
Sadly, I was one those supporting restoring CJ. In fact, I few to DC for lawyer's rally for restoring judiciary in Pakistan. As for why, b/c Mushy was a military dictator who had little regard for rule of law. When you have democratically elected govt in a place like Pakistan it should be supported & strengthen; not browbeaten into submission. The govt has mandate & not the CJ.
Should've known who you are supporting, now the same monkey is on your back, should be no complaints. Just like government tenure is about to expire he is not going to be CJ forever either. Just chill, let the time go, hopefully people will be able to vote for lesser evil in parliament and in return parliament will be able to better scrutinize and appoint better CJ. Until then, enjoy the show :D
As for the 2nd part, wrong comparison. Democracy does not =rape... that is a dictatorship (when you have no say). When you consent its a not rape. :D
Not really, awaam votes for the 'thugs' to solve their problems, not 'create problems' for them, so there is no "consent" for rape :D
Lol I hope that is a compliment. Btw maturing of institutions takes time...Rome wasn't built in a day. Also, this CJ as corrupt as any parliamentarian. Why give him a pass?
CJ is not as corrupt as any parliamentarian. Certainly not a PPP parliamentarian. If CJ is corrupt, PPP can bring about cases against him. He doesnt have immunity.
And he doesnt get a pass. Similarly, why should Zardari, the corrupt in chief get a pass and hide behind immunity? My understanding is that immunity for government officials is meant to protect them from frivolous lawsuits and cases. Its not like they can commit a crime and get away with it. Even Bill Clinton was impeached.
Should've known who you are supporting, now the same monkey is on your back, should be no complaints. Just like government tenure is about to expire he is not going to be CJ forever either. Just chill, let the time go, hopefully people will be able to vote for lesser evil in parliament and in return parliament will be able to better scrutinize and appoint better CJ. Until then, enjoy the show :D
Not really, awaam votes for the 'thugs' to solve their problems, not 'create problems' for them, so there is no "consent" for rape :D
...only if could all see the future...but life would be no fun? :D As for awam's vote...to me if you vote for someone that amounts to approval ie consent.
Yes, it is not the way SC should behave. It is not the way parliament should behave either. It was only after several decisions of the SC were ignored or bemeaned (appointment of Deedar Shah as chairman NAB as an example](http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-4528-Performance-of-NAB-)) that CJ got carried away.
CJ is not as corrupt as any parliamentarian. Certainly not a PPP parliamentarian. If CJ is corrupt, PPP can bring about cases against him. He doesnt have immunity.
And he doesnt get a pass. Similarly, why should Zardari, the corrupt in chief get a pass and hide behind immunity? My understanding is that immunity for government officials is meant to protect them from frivolous lawsuits and cases. Its not like they can commit a crime and get away with it. Even Bill Clinton was impeached.
On the one hand you're saying he is not corrupt & at the same time saying not corrupt as PPP? So, which one is it? Is he corrupt or not & shouldn't he be investigated for doling out favorable judgements to people who are sending his family to exotic places around the world? Or should we take your/his words that he is not corrupt?
As for the presidential immunity, its the law that president has immunity for prosecution while in the office. Immunity clause is not unique to Pakistan...most countries have similar laws. Btw, Clinton was impeached by the US House controled by Republicans & he was not convicted in the Senate. That is procedure in US & in Pakistan (impeachment & removal of the president from the office, not by the SC, but by the parliament/congress).
I agree that the CJ and judiciary have not acted impartially (if at all) but as a former PM and a man of dishonor, Gilani should also not have indulged in such trash talk
Imploring his successor to disobey the apex court's orders is unbecoming of a former PM
Interesting that you bring it in. I thought you would have followed the case.
Yes, countries have such immunity laws but normally they only apply to acts done in performing Presidential (or Royal) duties and not in personal capacity. BTW, Clinton was denied immunity in Paula Jones case.
I agree that the CJ and judiciary have not acted impartially (if at all) but as a former PM and a man of dishonor, Gilani should have also not indulged in such trash talk
Imploring his successor to disobey the apex court's orders is unbecoming of a someone who held such an important position recently
Well, I think Gilani had bad lawyers representing him. If I was his council I would have advised his against appearing before the SC b/c separation of powers. He set the wrong precedence for future PMs. PM is not accountable to SC for his actions...he is only accountable to the Parliament as chief executive of the country.
I thought in Swiss case, Pakistan was a civil party.
Monetary cases are normally civil cases & can originate out of criminal cases. Only exception is when penalty is partially monetary & if you failed to pay fines you may spend additional jail time for failing to meet required deal usually when there is plea bargain.
As for Swiss case, from what I remember conviction was overturned on appeal & state of Pakistan refused to appeal b/c of NRO and Swiss dropped the case. There is also statute of limitation & not much may happen even if future govt decide to pursue the case in Switzerland b/c it would be too late.
On the one hand you're saying he is not corrupt & at the same time saying not corrupt as PPP? So, which one is it? Is he corrupt or not & shouldn't he be investigated for doling out favorable judgements to people who are sending his family to exotic places around the world? Or should we take your/his words that he is not corrupt?
I dont know about his corruption. All that Ive heard is verbal stuff from the current gun-for-hire, Faisal Raza. And what I said was that if PPP has these issues with him, then file a case against CJ.
In all this drama that has unfolded since the NRO, one thing has been very obvious. Noone from PPP has ever come forward to 'defend' the core allegation against Zardari. PPP has always come back with the same 2 comebacks...
1. Others do it too..
2. President has immunity.
So tacitly, PPP admits Zardari and Benazir stole 60 million dollars.
they are willing to scarifice PM’s till the end of their tenure.
AA says, we will accept court decision and also look for replacement. matlab replace kerte reheinge, lakin letter nahi likhe gein? he further said, Parliament has been doing their role commendably!! Indeed they are.