and all this with the PCO judges, wait till the honest judiciary sits in, phir ye laug kidher jaiN ge?
LAHORE: The 3-member full bench of Lahore High Court (LHC) has declared Pakistan Muslim League (N) Chief Nawaz Sharif ineligible to contest the by-elections and allowed Shahbaz Sharif to continue to work as Chief Minister Punjab.
Petition of Shahbaz Sharif has been forwarded to Election Commission.
The court in its verdict also said that Shahbaz Sharif’s case should be considered as pending.
The council of Shahbaz Sharif said the decision of LHC is not the one made independently and there is ambiguity in the verdict.
The PML-N workers chanted slogans against the government outside LHC after the announcement of the decision.
^ doesnt the list of PCO judges also include CJ Ifti?
PCO or no, good decision by the courts. We should laud them when they make a correct decision even if it is for the wrong reasons. The proper thing is not to protest this decision, but argue for more of these, against other corrupt political personalities.
^ doesnt the list of PCO judges also include CJ Ifti?
Ifti doesn't come into this topic, the point is, this decision today demonstrates what the PCO is there for. Last week, both NS and SS refused to goto the court (neither did their counsels) as they didn't recognize the PCO judges and therefore a judgment against them was expected.
[quote]
PCO or no, good decision by the courts. We should laud them when they make a correct decision even if it is for the wrong reasons. The proper thing is not to protest this decision, but argue for more of these, against other corrupt political personalities.
[/quote]
Though this decision is good for the PML[N], it will create more resentment for Musharraf and the Govt, but what about other convicted and corrupt candidates who were allowed to run elections? How come they were not disqualified by these 'PCO' judges?
These PCO judges take orders from their torch bearers, this explains why things like the graduation clause for contestants come and go as needed.
Ifti doesnt come into this topic, the point is, this decision today demonstrates what the PCO is there for.
How does it demonstrate that? Does it rely on any PCO laws or the consitution itself? AFAIK convicted criminals are ineligible for office.
[quote]
Though this decision is good for the PML[N], it will create more resentment for Musharraf and the Govt, but what about other convicted and corrupt candidates who were allowed to run elections? How come they were not disqualified by these 'PCO' judges?
[/quote]
Other convicted and corrupt candidates should also be disqualified. If you were arguing for police letting off some robbers and imprisoning others you wouldnt say let the robbers you do catch off the hook please until you also catch the others.
[quote]
These PCO judges take orders from their torch bearers, this explains why things like the graduation clause for contestants come and go as needed.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree with the graduation clause entirely, therefore am glad when anyone is let go. I agree with the idea that convicted people shouldnt be allowed to compete for office, therefore am happy whenever that law is enforced, and only wish it was used more.
Well, then why are certain members sitting in the house then? I am not against the idea of having convicted candidates be banned from holding office, my whole point is to show what this PCO is there for. There are lots of convicted people sitting in our offices, both who have received convictions, and ones that got away thanks to these PCO judges, including certain heavy loan defaulters. As for the graduation clause, I dont care if you are with it, or against it (nor did I say im with it or against it), my point is that it comes and goes when needed, which is the PCO/lota principal I am referring to.
Also, you are talking about the constitution? Its funny how that plane hijack case conviction was handed to NS by the same PCO judges, on the orders of a Military dictator who should be hung for treason for his actions that led to that in the first place.
This is precisely why we need an free and independent judiciary.
Again, how does it demonstrate that THIS is why PCO is there. PCO as I understand it was merely a legal cover for the dictator, and im not aware of clauses that can be used to make this particular decision.
In that case these judges have the same validity that CJ Ifti has. And in the past you have accepted his decisions without chuun charaan so why start now?
And again, any additional convicted candidates should also be banned. Nawaz is a good start, and a step in the right direction.
Again, how does it demonstrate that THIS is why PCO is there. PCO as I understand it was merely a legal cover for the dictator, and im not aware of clauses that can be used to make this particular decision.
In that case these judges have the same validity that CJ Ifti has. And in the past you have accepted his decisions without chuun charaan so why start now?
All the politically motivated convictions after 1999 were due to PCO judges, end of story. Which decisions against politicians did I support, bring them up, and show me where I have supported them or resented them.
Also, this whole NS conviction was passed by PCO judges too, so one can also argue there should be a retrial, based on a non-PCO judiciary
[quote]
And again, any additional convicted candidates should also be banned. Nawaz is a good start, and a step in the right direction.
[/quote]
Mashallah, for the last 9-10 years this has not happened (both for the 2002, and the 2008 elections), what makes you think it wiill happen now? Mark my words, no one that the Govt does not wish for, will be disqualified from office.
Ameer-ul-Mujrameen got disqualified? What a shame for Pakistani misguided Mujrameens. Now, they would burn, loot and plunder on road of Lahore instead of throughout Pakistan using government office. :(
All the politically motivated convictions after 1999 were due to PCO judges, end of story. Which decisions against politicians did I support, bring them up, and show me where I have supported them or resented them.
Also, this whole NS conviction was passed by PCO judges too, so one can also argue there should be a retrial, based on a non-PCO judges.
Am I correct in believing that you want Ifti restored? If so why would you want him restored if you will dismiss his judgements?
[quote]
Mashallah, for the last 9-10 years this has not happened (both for the 2002, and the 2008 elections), what makes you think it wiill happen now? Mark my words, no one that the Govt does not wish for, will be disqualified from office.
[/QUOTE]
And thats whats wrong. What we should object to are those who are wrongly saved from being disqualified, not the convicts who get disqualifications themselves.
Am I correct in believing that you want Ifti restored? If so why would you want him restored if you will dismiss his judgements?
And thats whats wrong. What we should object to are those who are wrongly saved from being disqualified, not the convicts who get disqualifications themselves.
For the record, I have been against such things, be is the PCO or NRO. Plenty of thugs, now termed as NRO beneficiaries both from the PPP and MQM are now governing the country thanks to such ludicrous judgments. Also, before you ask me about why I supported any other judgments, let me ask you, why did you never raise a voice when the loan defaulters and former criminals were forgiven, and those that committed treason were judged as 'saviors' and applicants of the doctrines of necessities.
For the record, I have been against such things, be is the PCO or NRO. Plenty of thugs, now termed as NRO beneficiaries both from the PPP and MQM are now governing the country thanks to such ludicrous judgments. Also, before you ask me about why I supported any other judgments, let me ask you, why did you never raise a voice when the loan defaulters and former criminals were forgiven, and those that committed treason were judged as 'saviors' and applicants of the doctrines of necessities.
I dont think I asked you which judgements you supported, rather which judges you support. If PCO is your criterion for determining if a judgement is free and fair, you shouldnt be rooting for Iftikhar, since he too has that on his resume.
Any loan defaulters and criminals that are forgiven (i dont know whom you refer to) shouldnt be in office. That does not mean that any loan defaulters and criminals that are not forgiven should be in office. Even if the right thing is politically motivated, it is the right thing. We need more of it, not less.
I dont think I asked you which judgements you supported, rather which judges you support. If PCO is your criterion for determining if a judgement is free and fair, you shouldnt be rooting for Iftikhar, since he too has that on his resume.
With that logic, nothing that happened after 1999 shouldnt be recognized, not even the 2002 or 2008 elections, since it was all based on unconstitutional measures. The point is, PCO or no PCO, iftikhar's dismissal was a further insult to the judiciary independence, end of story, no ifs or buts.
[quote]
Any loan defaulters and criminals that are forgiven (i dont know whom you refer to) shouldnt be in office. That does not mean that any loan defaulters and criminals that are not forgiven should be in office.
[/quote]
Lets see now, the Chaudhries who are loan defaulters have already completed their 5 grand years of office, what do you think of that?
good one, now see how much they care about the judiciary. PCO or not PCO if convicted all should be thrown out of election race including the Mr 10(0)% turned Saint and all the loan defaulters and looters including the chuadaries and all .
