SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

[Shamraz_Khan]

Re: SC rules in favor of Sharif brothers (merged)

@Sa1eem

Bhai … who told you that? Don’t tell me that it was told to you by kaka Nawaz

Bhai its in little green book. Its called The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Try reading it some time.

Under parliamentary act of 1997 power to appoint the service chiefs was given to the prime minister. Mushrraf was appointed by NS, and he had the right to remove him under the constitution.

If PM could have sacked anyone with NO reason as you like to believe than with change of every Prime Minister many people everywhere in government job would lose their jobs.

It happens all the time. When govt change hand (at least in western countries) the political appointees have to go, too. Very common and very normal thing in democracies all over the world.

Actually Prime Minister everywhere in the world depends on government servants to rule and implement their policies and depends on armed forces to guarantee their power (or authority) over others (next power after armed forces that guarantee Prime Minister rule over others are police).

Sorry, but I think you understand how govt works. The departments and agencies that take political direction from the PM, including the cabinet-level departments (which includes army and police), constitute the executive branch of the government.

The executive branch under the constitution must enforce laws passed by the parliament, and it must implement judicial orders. As with the legislature, the judiciary cannot enforce its decisions without the help of the executive (e.g. police force, prison service or the army).

Also, army is an institution of the govt and SC and Parliament are branches of the govt. Tomorrow the parliament can do away with the army as institution, but it cannot get rid of the SC or vice versa.

Just imagine that Army chiefs are the most powerful people in the country as they have army under their command. They can bite back if anything happens to them, especially if any wrong is done to them from any quarters. As for Chief Justice, they have no power under their control and depend on others in power to implement their verdicts. Even then, Prime Minister cannot sack Chief Justice (or any judge) without reason.

The Chief Justice is head of a branch of a govt and the army chief is a head of branch of governmental institution. There is a big different between the two. To give you a comparative example, army chief’s position on terms of hierarchy of the govt jobs is less than junior sport minister and CJ powers equals to that of a president.

As for army, no executive interfere there. Army does their own investigation and sacking, rather they do court martial as army posts are crucial posts. If executive try to interfere they can get thrown out anywhere in the world (except when executives are too strong … like Mao or Bhutto in his early days).

No, it only happens in banana republics, like ours, where corrupt generals think they’re above the law or accountability of any kind.

What I know is that USA and UK forces have such provisions and even though they might not take over the country, but they could easily kill unwanted elements in executives or corridor of power. No court or justice system could do anything to them nor Justice System ever dare to do anything to them. What I know, Kennedy and Diana was victim of such provisions and Edward VIII (of UK) loosing his Kingship was also victim of such provisions. All get done in the name of National

I think Afghanistan is having bumper hashish corp again this year.

Defence lawyers … :rotato: … well, Pakistani lawyers and judges are mostly corrupt jokers :D. They survive in Pakistan because in Pakistan jokers have values for many

Well, I hope you don’t end up on the wrong side of law in Pakistan where you just might need one of those corrupt people.