Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

[Reza_Pahlavi]

The bolded parts will give you the true picture as to what the Chief Justice and his fellow justices actually said in respect to the 17th Amendment and the President’s Uniform.

Request - please do not merge this thread with any others, as I want people to observe the real reported facts of the case at hand.

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=9949

SC rejects plea for stay against Musharraf - no one wants to derail the system

Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on Wednesday rejected a plea for granting a stay order to stop President Pervez Musharraf from contesting the forthcoming presidential election, observing that “no one wants to derail” the system.

**The chief justice observed: “Much water has passed under the bridge, the 17th Amendment has been implemented, the president has almost completed his tenure and general elections are coming. No one wants to derail this system at this stage.” **

He told AK Dogar, the counsel for the Lawyers Forum, to “please, keep these things in mind.” Rejecting the stay plea, the bench pointed out that if a stay was granted, the result would be “chaos in the country.”

Justice Faqir Mohammad Khokhar observed that the amendment was passed by the elected representatives with two-third majority. “If they cannot pass constitutional amendment, then what is the responsibility of the parliamentarian?” he asked.

The chief justice observed that the 17th Amendment was passed by elected representatives belonging to political parties. He recalled that General Ziaul Haq became president through a referendum and also held the top military post.

Justice Abdul Hamid Dogar observed that the Parliament was the framer of the Constitution and the Parliament could amend it in accordance with the constitutional provisions.

[Flame_of_Life]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

Govt. doesn’t wanna play.

BBCUrdu.com

[Reza_Pahlavi]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

Supreme Court in no hurry at all to make any moves to stop the President’s re-election. In fact they seem to very understanding of the govt side’s pleas.

5 more years for President and Commander-in-Chief Pervez Musharraf. :jhanda:

The News International: Latest News Breaking, World, Entertainment, Royal News

**President’s dual office case hearing adjourned till Sep 17th **

Updated at 1355 PST

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Thursday adjourned hearing of Jamat Islami’s constitutional petition against dual-offices of the president till September 17. A seven-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry hearing the petition. Attorney General Malik Qayyum and the counsel of president Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada presented their formulations during the hearing. The learned court nominated S.M. Zafar, Aitizaz Ahsan and Abdul Hafeez Pirzada to assist the court in the case after refusal of the Attorney General. The Attorney General however later agreed to assist the court. The learned court during the hearing today asked the Attorney General if he would submit a statement about the dual-offices of the president. The Attorney General answered that he would inform the court after getting instructions from his client. He left the courtroom to his office. The Attorney General later told the court that after getting instructions from his client he is saying that there is no need to submit a written reply in the light of the verdict of the Lawyers Forum case. Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry than said that the regular hearing of the case will be started after a break. Earlier, the counsel of president Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada submitted his reply in the court in which he told the court that President Musharraf would continue his dual offices till his successor would take over after November 15. Akram Shaikh Advocate in his objection said that President Musharraf has not been made party in the case but the federation and General Pervez Musharraf made party. The learned court asked the Attorney General to reply on the matter. Attorney General Malik Qayyum requested the court to grant him one-month period for filing detailed reply. The court said that he would be given one-week period for submission of the reply.

[Reza_Pahlavi]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

During the hearing of review petition, Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar inquired from Advocate AK Dogar whether he was aware of any judgement in history of Pakistan through which a constitutional amendment passed by Parliament was struck down by apex court?

Advocate Dogar replied that though there is no such citation…

So many hopes being dashed.

[Shamraz_Khan]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

The bolded parts will give you the true picture as to what the Chief Justice and his fellow justices actually said in respect to the 17th Amendment and the President's Uniform.

I think 17th Amendment and presidential election are to separate issues. What the SC said is that its not going to undo what the parliament has done (which it doesn't have the power to do anyways as parliament is sovereign branch of the gov). Mushrraf's "reelection" in vardi is totally different issue and I think when the issue comes before the SC, the court will say that Mushrraf can't a president in uniform.

BTW, I think Mushrraf can use this law to hang on to power for indefinite time. Sad thing is that it has no sunset clause (no expiration date).

[quote]
President to Hold Another Office Act, 2004
Act No. VII of 2004
Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Islamabad, Part I, 2004, p177-178
November 30, 2004

An Act to enable the President of Pakistan to hold another office

WHEREAS paragraph (d) of clause (1) of Article 63 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan provides for holding another office of profit in the service of Pakistan if declared by law as such;

AND WHEREAS it is expedient to make declaratory provision enabling the President to hold another office of profit in the service of Pakistan;

It is hereby enacted as follows:-
1. Short title, extent and commencement
(1) This Act my be called the President to Hold Another Office Act, 2004

(2) It extends to the whole of Pakistan.

(3) It shall come into force on the 31st December, 2004.

2 Holder of another office
The holder of the office of the President of Pakistan may, in addition to his office, hold the office of the Chief of the Army Staff which is hereby declared not to disqualify its holder as provided under paragraph (d) of clause (1) of Article 63 read with proviso to paragraph (b) of clause (7) of Article 41 of the Consitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan or any other law for the time being in force or any judgement of any court or tribunal:

Provided that this provision shall be valid only of the present holder of the office of the President.

[/quote]

[Reza_Pahlavi]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

There is not a hope in hell that the Supreme Court will make any ruling against the 17th Amendment or the ‘President Holding Another Office Bill’. That is because on 13 April 2005 a 5 judge SC panel declared these to be perfectly constitutional and legal, and gave substantive reasons as to why this was the case.

http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk//judgment.htm
**JUDGMENT ON 17TH AMENDMENT AND PRESIDENT’S UNIFORM CASE **

• 13 April 2005

The 5 Judge Panel comprised the present CJ, and two other justices sitting on the present panel.

Mr. Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J.
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal
Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar
Mr. Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar

** The present constitutional structure rests on the foundation of the 17th Amendment. Without it, the civilian rule may not have been possible.**

**If the petition is accepted and the 17th Amendment struck down, this entire constitutional edifice will collapse. The President, the Prime Minister, the Governors, the Chief Ministers, the Parliamentarians, the Members of the Provincial Assemblies, 3 Services chiefs and Judges of superior judiciary appointed by the President, all will cease to hold office at once. **

**The government of the country will cease to function and total anarchy will prevail. The government under the Constitution will be undone and a vacuum will be created. This is not the function of the judiciary. In short, accepting the petitions and striking down the 17th Amendment would invite chaos and create a constitutional crisis.

**

As the CJ and his colleagues have said we can’t touch the 17th Amendment or else the whole system will be wrapped up, and they will end up losing their jobs in the process as well

As I said 5 more years for President and Commander-in-Chief Pervez Musharraf, but now I will also add 5 more years for the CJ as well. :jhanda:

[saint_devil]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

some mukh mukha behind the scence perhaps ??

Five more years of the farce that this dictator insists on calling democracy
Five more years of military-crooked politicians collusion
Five more years of further polarisation & alienation of Pak army vs common men
Five more years of downward spiral of the professional capabilities of Pak armed forces

BUT

hopefully

Five more years of economic growth and expansion

[Reza_Pahlavi]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

CJ seemed highly irritated that the anti-Musharraf petitioners were even pushing for this case to be heard urgently. It's as though the CJ does not really even want to hear this case, and is just going through the motions so as to not dissapoint the "crowd". ;)

**
[quote]
Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry warned the petitioner’s counsel not to come up with “daily applications in my chamber” for the fixation of the case. “You have submitted applications for the fixation of this case even after the judicial order passed by a four-member bench of the Supreme Court regarding fixation of the case after summer vacation.”**
[/quote]

[quote]
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry asked the learned counsel as to what was the urgency in taking up the petition despite the fact that the court had decided that it would be taken up after the court holidays.
[/quote]

As can be seen CJ wants to drag this out, which only benefits the President and Commander-in-Chief. :)

**
[quote]
Meanwhile, A K Dogar requested the court to give him more time for his arguments. Later, the court after the consent of both the parties adjourned the hearing for two weeks.**
[/quote]

[Flame_of_Life]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

Sharmaz, I don't quite agree when u say that SC doesn't have the power to strike down constitutional amendments. It is the custodian of law and basic human rights in the country and for example...if the Parliament enacts a law that legalizes slavery, would the SC have the jurisdiction to strike down that amendment or not?

Pakistan has it's own peculiar parliamentary system and from what I understand Parliament is not the supreme institution in Pak. It is the Constitution.

[Reza_Pahlavi]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

@Shamraz_Khan

I think 17th Amendment and presidential election are to separate issues. What the SC said is that its not going to undo what the parliament has done (which it doesn't have the power to do anyways as parliament is sovereign branch of the gov).

That is what the Supreme Court has always said, and what the 2005 judgement on the 17th Amendment and President's dual office also reiterated repeatedly.

[quote]
The superior courts of this country have consistently acknowledged that while there may be a basic structure to the Constitution, and while there may also be limitations on the power of Parliament to make amendments to such basic structure, such limitations are to be exercised and enforced not by the judiciary, but by the body politic, i.e., the people of Pakistan.
[/quote]

[quote]
*There are three decades of settled law to the effect that even though there were certain salient features of the Constitution, no constitutional amendment could be struck down by the superior judiciary as being violative of those features. The remedy lay in the political and not the judicial process. The appeal in such cases was to be made to the people not the courts. A constitutional amendment posed a political question, which could be resolved only through the normal mechanisms of parliamentary democracy and free elections.
[/quote]
*

[Reza_Pahlavi]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

@Shamraz_Khan

BTW, I think Mushrraf can use this law to hang on to power for indefinite time. Sad thing is that it has no sunset clause (no expiration date).

You could be right about that as well, because the **President to Hold Another Office Act, 2004 **does state that “this provision shall be valid only of the present holder of the office of the President”

President to Hold Another Office Act, 2004

That means that as long as Musharraf is President the articles barring holding 2 offices will remain suspended. Hence he could techinically continue holding his uniform and get re-elected as President, but his successor could do not (i.e. hold two offices of state). The 2005 SC Judgement also ruled that:-

**Another Office Act is not liable to be struck down as ultra vires of Article 43 of the Constitution. **

[Shamraz_Khan]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

@Flame_of_Life

Sharmaz, I don't quite agree when u say that SC doesn't have the power to strike down constitutional amendments. It is the custodian of law and basic human rights in the country and for example...if the Parliament enacts a law that legalizes slavery, would the SC have the jurisdiction to strike down that amendment or not?

Pakistan has it's own peculiar parliamentary system and from what I understand Parliament is not the supreme institution in Pak. It is the Constitution.

FOL, it takes two 3rd majority to amend (change) the constitution. The SC simply doesn't have the power to strike down an amendment even if it alters basic structure of the constitution b/c its not a simple piece of legislation. I don't know too much about Pakistani laws, but here in the US the constitution has been amended 27th times in over 230 years, and it has never been struck down by the SC.

[Shamraz_Khan]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

@Reza_Pahlavi

You could be right about that as well, because the **President to Hold Another Office Act, 2004 **does state that "this provision shall be valid only of the present holder of the office of the President"

Well, this law has its own weakness. If I was the lawyer challenging Mushy's vardi, I would've asked the court to strike down this legislation first b/c it was passed to benefit single person. Its ethically and morally wrong (may even be illegal), and the SC may strike it down.

[Flame_of_Life]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

@Shamraz_Khan

FOL, it takes two 3rd majority to amend (change) the constitution. The SC simply doesn't have the power to strike down an amendment even if it alters basic structure of the constitution b/c its not a simple piece of legislation. I don't know too much about Pakistani laws, but here in the US the constitution has been amended 27th times in over 230 years, and it has never been struck down by the SC.

Fortunately or unfortunately, courts in Pakistan rarely use US judicial system for citing precedences. Mostly it is from UK and India, and in India the SC has said that the Parliament can't change the basic structure of the constitution. Makes sense to me. If you want to uproot the whole system, then you need to be qualified for that and to change the constitution, you'll need a constituent assembly elected to do just that, not the parliament.

[Aalsi]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

@Reza_Pahlavi

Supreme Court in no hurry at all to make any moves to stop the President’s re-election. In fact they seem to very understanding of the govt side’s pleas.

How can this be? What does it mean to people that have pinned their hope on CJ removing President Musharaf

[Flame_of_Life]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

yeah man..so understanding is the CJ he refused govt’s plea for a stay. We r all pulling our hair out. Traitor CJ

[Reza_Pahlavi]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

@Aalsi

How can this be? What does it mean to people that have pinned their hope on CJ removing President Musharaf

Bhaijaan :), as I intimated in one of my earlier posts it’s a case of self-interest on all sides to not touch the 17th Amendment, and the Supreme Court has declared that quite clearly. The CJ was party to the 2005 judgement and was in effect saying the thing the other day, namely that:-

**If the petition is accepted and the 17th Amendment struck down, this entire constitutional edifice will collapse. The President, the Prime Minister, the Governors, the Chief Ministers, the Parliamentarians, the Members of the Provincial Assemblies, 3 Services chiefs and Judges of superior judiciary appointed by the President, all will cease to hold office at once.

**

**Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on Wednesday rejected a plea for granting a stay order to stop President Pervez Musharraf from contesting the forthcoming presidential election, observing that “no one wants to derail” the system.

The chief justice observed: “Much water has passed under the bridge, the 17th Amendment has been implemented, the president has almost completed his tenure and general elections are coming. No one wants to derail this system at this stage.”**

Hence, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry – father of Arsalan knows full well that he would lose his job (along with countless others) if the Musharrafian system was tampered with.

5 more years for all ! – President, CJ and others.

[Flame_of_Life]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

Little correction in the fancy dream land:

CJ's tenure doesnt end till 2013 so get used to seeing him for more than 5 years.

[Flame_of_Life]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

wha

who is SCJ :aq:

[shriek11]

Re: Supreme Court Rejects plea for stay against Musharraf re-election

@Flame_of_Life

Little correction in the fancy dream land:

CJ’s tenure doesnt end till 2013 so get used to seeing him for more than 5 years.

Didn’t our “eminent” shamraz khan in this forum said that PM [the new govt] has the right to appoint new judges etc. as it is done in other countries?