Whats the basis for Sharif's disqualification?

[ehtasab]

Does anybody know on what basis Shahbaz Sharif was disqualified? Does anybody has detailed ruling? I see the thread but couldn’t dig the information from so many pages.

Anyone?

[aam_bandha]

The truth … they perhaps pissed of the judges …

But legally … here is the story

Syed Khurram Shah, a rival candidate of PML-N president Shahbaz Sharif had filed petition in the Supreme Court, seeking disqualification of Punjab Chief Minister Mian Shahbaz Sharif. He had contended that Shahbaz Sharif was a defaulter of various financial institutions and also committed contempt of court by storming the Supreme Court in 1998. In his appeal of CPLA 905, Syed Khuram Shah had prayed to the apex court to nullify the June 3, 2008 notification of Election Commission of Pakistan, declaring Mian Shahbaz Sharif as winning candidate on PP 48, Bhakkar. After the short verdict of Supreme Court, Mian Shahbaz Sharif has lost his seat in the Provincial Assembly from PP-48 Bhakkar and is no longer as member of Punjab Assembly, thus he is no more as Chief Minister Punjab after the apex court annulled the earlier notification about his being Chief Minister
The Frontier Post

The situation in Pakistan is fast turning into the same mess it was in 1971 … hope India does not have to step in a “break up” a fight … that won’t be good!!!

[ehtasab]

Re: Whats the basis for Sharif’s disqualification?

^ ok thanks for providing the link/info.

I just saw on Geo News MQM said that unfortunately the verdict is okay based on the evidences/technicality.

How was Nawaz disqualified before election and Shahbaz qualified, they both have similar crimes?

Apparently its case of under the table deals (Judiciary paying attention to government wishes).

[initiator]

Re: Whats the basis for Sharif's disqualification?

MQM, as a political party, has no character. They will support any party that offers them some ministries in the centre and leaves Karachi under their control. Just a few years back, when Naseerullah Babar was cracking down in Karachi, PPP was their worst enemy, and they were closer to PML. Now the tables have turned.

[Shamraz_Khan]

SS is no more guilty than many other crooks in Pakistan. Take Choudires for example. They have eaten up entire banks, yet as long as they're willing to play ball with those who matter no one will touch them. So, it has nothing to do with conviction or loan default. Even in NS case, he was legally and constitutionally elected PM when he was over thrown by then army chief & convicted by a court under questionable circumstances...and army chief got away...who should be trial for treason.

[DOVE]

Basis for Sharif's Disqualification are
1. He dismissed all the corrupt and sluggish CSP Officers.
2. Under his captainship, the law and order situation in Punjab was better than all the three province, FATA & Azad Kasmir.
3. He established a special fund for deserving and bright Punjabi Students.
4. He reduced the price of ''roti'' from 5 Rs. to Rs. 2 and made the poor to at least satisfy their hunger.
5. He gifted Wheat to Sindh.
6. He gifted a Cardiology Hospital to Balochistan.
7. During recent EarthQuake in Balochistan, he himself visited the affected areas and
donated a great amount thus setting new traditions of National Unity.
8. He went to homes of all the murdered/raped woman and children. He gave them donations.
9. He regualarly checked and maintained Health Department visiting hospitals, dismissing Corrupt doctors/Health officers.
10. He gave 2 Lakh Rupees to each and every Position Holder in various Board/ University Examination e.g Matric, Inter, BA, BSc and in literary and speech contests.
Whereas in PMLQ Govt, only Rs. 15000 rupees were given per student.

[yazdi]

Well for more technical analysis read this!

Wages of injustice

**Wages of injustice **

Part I Legal eye

Friday, February 27, 2009
by Babar Sattar

A short order of a three-member bench of the Supreme Court has declared Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif ineligible to hold public office. The decision wasn’t unexpected for those who had been following the Sharif ineligibility case. But it was unfortunate and disappointing nevertheless. It resulted in the fall of the PML-N government in Punjab, became a specious apology for imposition of emergency and governor’s rule, and precipitated further political turmoil in the country already afflicted with a multifarious systemic crisis. The court decision and the follow-up actions of the Zardari-run executive make patent to the thinking minds of our nation the repercussions of tolerating and condoning a state of affairs where the ruling regime practices autocracy in democratic garb and the gatekeepers of justice become racketeers in pursuit of petty personal gains.

“We are not unaware that we are not final because we are infallible; we know that we are infallible only because we are final,” wrote Justice Robert Jackson of the US Supreme Court in 1953 in a concurring opinion upholding that the Supreme Court was the last court of appeal. Can there be a graver misfortune for a country and a nation when its citizens view the finality and the infallibility of their last court of appeal with extreme skepticism due to lingering doubts about the integrity and independence of the vanguards of their fundamental law?

The eligibility case before the Supreme Court was as much about the qualification of the Sharifs as it was about the ability of a PCO-ridden court to sit in judgment over the leaders of a political party who have vociferously criticised PCO judges for aiding and abetting unconstitutional acts. During the proceedings the judges did occasionally go into fits of pique over the refusal of the Sharifs to submit themselves before a bench dominated by PCO-judges. The angst in their observations partly manifested their awareness of the dark perception of doubt that hung over their own eligibility to preside over the matter. One of the reasons that the Lahore High Court recorded for holding Nawaz Sharif ineligible as a candidate for Parliament was that he was guilty of contempt of court due to his outbursts against PCO judges.

The lawyers representing parties that had filed appeals in support of the Sharifs had submitted an application seeking recusal of PCO judges from the Supreme Court bench hearing the appeals and for constitution of a larger bench comprising judges who had not sworn an oath under the Nov 3 PCO. Not only did the Supreme Court not decide this miscellaneous application before proceeding further with the case, they also, against ordinary judicial procedure and practice, punished the applicants for their audacity to suggest that individual members of the bench have a conflict of interest in view of the subject-matter of the appeals and slapped a fine of Rs100,000 on the applicants in their order against Nawaz Sharif.

By insisting that the bench comprising PCO judges was able to sit in judgment over someone held culpable for rancour-filled speech against PCO judges,** the court decimated a cardinal rule of natural justice that no one should be judge in his own cause (nemo debet esse iudex in propria causa).** Further, in the last few weeks the court continued to hear arguments of pro-Sharif lawyers on the recusal application, together with their locus standi (standing) to file appeals against the High Court order. These lawyers pedantically reiterated that they were only furnishing their arguments on the technical issues of recusal and standing and had not argued the merits of the case. The court accepted this position all along during the proceedings, yet shockingly insisted on the last date of hearing that it had heard the case on its merits and rendered a decision accordingly, while holding that all arguments had been concluded.

Lord Chief Justice Gordon Hewart of the UK had held in Ex parte McCarthy, in what has become the elementary test for a valid and unbiased judicial ruling, that, “justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” The larger cause for despair in observing the Sharifs’ eligibility trial was the creepy feeling that the decisions being reached in our supposed citadel of justice on Constitution Avenue are being informed not strictly by the dictates of law and equity but by extraneous factors and invidious prejudices that must be strictly consigned to the world of politics if rule of law is to promote fairness and justice.

First of all, it doesn’t matter if the perception of bias shared by those holding a grudge against PCO-judges was misconceived or unfounded. The credibility of a justice system is gauged by the perception or fairness, and not the reality, as summed up by Lord Hewart. Secondly, even if those observing the trial were being harsh in attributing questionable motives to an otherwise honourable, impartial and upright bench of the Supreme Court, the imposition of governor’s rule in Punjab as a response to their judgment entrenched the perception that the outcome of the Sharifs eligibility matter was a collaborative enterprise between the ruling elite within the executive and the judiciary.

The Lahore High Court ruling came in June 2008 at a time when fissures between the Zardari-led PPP and the PML-N were growing, but the two mainstream parties still had a working relationship. This judgment – that disqualified Nawaz Sharif but referred Shahbaz Sharif’s case to the Election Tribunal – presented a trailer of what could follow, but did not shake up the status quo or redistribute political power. The appeal against the ruling then went to the Supreme Court and the legal process kept grinding along slowly as the relationship between Zardari and the Sharifs continued to nosedive. The bench suddenly woke up to inordinate delays being caused in the matter and ordered day-to-day hearings as the lawyers’ long march approached closer and Zardari’s pressure on the Sharifs to disassociate themselves from the lawyers’ dharna mounted.

Once the PML-N unequivocally announced its decision to back the pre-Nov 3 judiciary led by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and join the long march and dharna, the Supreme Court upheld Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification within days and decided to send Shahbaz Sharif packing as well. Can the overlap between (a) the timing of these judicial decisions and the pace and manner in which the courts conducted their hearings and (b) the ugly power games being played out in the political arena, be explained away as an innocent coincidence? Is it also an accident that throughout Pakistan’s history, judicial decisions have only entrenched status-quo forces?

We have been handed down progressive judgments by our courts emphasising the sanctity of constitutional rule and imperatives of democracy – in cases such as that of Asma Jillani – that were rendered after a dictator had passed along and was no longer on the horizon. And conversely we have been tortured by licentious judicial pronouncements – in cases such as Dosso, Nusrat Bhutto, Zafar Ali Shah and Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan – when the guardians of our Constitution became complicit in its decimation and those subverting the fundamental social and legal contract between the citizens and the state were still in power.

The disease that plagues our justice system is that of pragmatism. When those installed by society at the highest mantle to act as neutral arbiters while sitting in judgment over their peers reduce themselves to the enforcement arm of a corrupt coterie at the helm of the ruling elite, judicial edicts serve the wishes of the powerful and not the needs of justice. All constitutional guarantees offered to citizens and the carefully crafted system of distribution of power and checks and balances between independent pillars of the state are brought to naught by a judiciary that is incapable of functioning as an impartial guardian of rule of law. The outcome of the Sharifs’ eligibility case is not an aberration, but another manifestation of the unhealthy state of our polity where the judicial branch continues to function as an extension of the executive.

(To be concluded)

The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad. He is a Rhodes scholar and has an LL.M from Harvard Law School. Email: [email protected]

[desert_bird]

@DOVE

Basis for Sharif’s Disqualification are

1. He dismissed all the corrupt and sluggish CSP Officers.
2. Under his captainship, the law and order situation in Punjab was better than all the three province, FATA & Azad Kasmir.
3. He established a special fund for deserving and bright Punjabi Students.
4. He reduced the price of ‘‘roti’’ from 5 Rs. to Rs. 2 and made the poor to at least satisfy their hunger.
5. He gifted Wheat to Sindh.
6. He gifted a Cardiology Hospital to Balochistan.
7. During recent EarthQuake in Balochistan, he himself visited the affected areas and
   donated a great amount thus setting new traditions of National Unity.
8. He went to homes of all the murdered/raped woman and children. He gave them donations.
9. He regualarly checked and maintained Health Department visiting hospitals, dismissing Corrupt doctors/Health officers.
10. He gave 2 Lakh Rupees to each and every Position Holder in various Board/ University Examination e.g Matric, Inter, BA, BSc and in literary and speech contests.
    Whereas in PMLQ Govt, only Rs. 15000 rupees were given per student.

:k:

[desert_bird]

@yazdi

Well for more technical analysis read this!

Wages of injustice

**Wages of injustice **

Part I Legal eye

Friday, February 27, 2009
by Babar Sattar

A short order of a three-member bench of the Supreme Court has declared Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif ineligible to hold public office. The decision wasn’t unexpected for those who had been following the Sharif ineligibility case. But it was unfortunate and disappointing nevertheless. It resulted in the fall of the PML-N government in Punjab, became a specious apology for imposition of emergency and governor’s rule, and precipitated further political turmoil in the country already afflicted with a multifarious systemic crisis. The court decision and the follow-up actions of the Zardari-run executive make patent to the thinking minds of our nation the repercussions of tolerating and condoning a state of affairs where the ruling regime practices autocracy in democratic garb and the gatekeepers of justice become racketeers in pursuit of petty personal gains.

“We are not unaware that we are not final because we are infallible; we know that we are infallible only because we are final,” wrote Justice Robert Jackson of the US Supreme Court in 1953 in a concurring opinion upholding that the Supreme Court was the last court of appeal. Can there be a graver misfortune for a country and a nation when its citizens view the finality and the infallibility of their last court of appeal with extreme skepticism due to lingering doubts about the integrity and independence of the vanguards of their fundamental law?

The eligibility case before the Supreme Court was as much about the qualification of the Sharifs as it was about the ability of a PCO-ridden court to sit in judgment over the leaders of a political party who have vociferously criticised PCO judges for aiding and abetting unconstitutional acts. During the proceedings the judges did occasionally go into fits of pique over the refusal of the Sharifs to submit themselves before a bench dominated by PCO-judges. The angst in their observations partly manifested their awareness of the dark perception of doubt that hung over their own eligibility to preside over the matter. One of the reasons that the Lahore High Court recorded for holding Nawaz Sharif ineligible as a candidate for Parliament was that he was guilty of contempt of court due to his outbursts against PCO judges.

The lawyers representing parties that had filed appeals in support of the Sharifs had submitted an application seeking recusal of PCO judges from the Supreme Court bench hearing the appeals and for constitution of a larger bench comprising judges who had not sworn an oath under the Nov 3 PCO. Not only did the Supreme Court not decide this miscellaneous application before proceeding further with the case, they also, against ordinary judicial procedure and practice, punished the applicants for their audacity to suggest that individual members of the bench have a conflict of interest in view of the subject-matter of the appeals and slapped a fine of Rs100,000 on the applicants in their order against Nawaz Sharif.

By insisting that the bench comprising PCO judges was able to sit in judgment over someone held culpable for rancour-filled speech against PCO judges,** the court decimated a cardinal rule of natural justice that no one should be judge in his own cause (nemo debet esse iudex in propria causa).** Further, in the last few weeks the court continued to hear arguments of pro-Sharif lawyers on the recusal application, together with their locus standi (standing) to file appeals against the High Court order. These lawyers pedantically reiterated that they were only furnishing their arguments on the technical issues of recusal and standing and had not argued the merits of the case. The court accepted this position all along during the proceedings, yet shockingly insisted on the last date of hearing that it had heard the case on its merits and rendered a decision accordingly, while holding that all arguments had been concluded.

Lord Chief Justice Gordon Hewart of the UK had held in Ex parte McCarthy, in what has become the elementary test for a valid and unbiased judicial ruling, that, “justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” The larger cause for despair in observing the Sharifs’ eligibility trial was the creepy feeling that the decisions being reached in our supposed citadel of justice on Constitution Avenue are being informed not strictly by the dictates of law and equity but by extraneous factors and invidious prejudices that must be strictly consigned to the world of politics if rule of law is to promote fairness and justice.

First of all, it doesn’t matter if the perception of bias shared by those holding a grudge against PCO-judges was misconceived or unfounded. The credibility of a justice system is gauged by the perception or fairness, and not the reality, as summed up by Lord Hewart. Secondly, even if those observing the trial were being harsh in attributing questionable motives to an otherwise honourable, impartial and upright bench of the Supreme Court, the imposition of governor’s rule in Punjab as a response to their judgment entrenched the perception that the outcome of the Sharifs eligibility matter was a collaborative enterprise between the ruling elite within the executive and the judiciary.

The Lahore High Court ruling came in June 2008 at a time when fissures between the Zardari-led PPP and the PML-N were growing, but the two mainstream parties still had a working relationship. This judgment – that disqualified Nawaz Sharif but referred Shahbaz Sharif’s case to the Election Tribunal – presented a trailer of what could follow, but did not shake up the status quo or redistribute political power. The appeal against the ruling then went to the Supreme Court and the legal process kept grinding along slowly as the relationship between Zardari and the Sharifs continued to nosedive. The bench suddenly woke up to inordinate delays being caused in the matter and ordered day-to-day hearings as the lawyers’ long march approached closer and Zardari’s pressure on the Sharifs to disassociate themselves from the lawyers’ dharna mounted.

Once the PML-N unequivocally announced its decision to back the pre-Nov 3 judiciary led by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and join the long march and dharna, the Supreme Court upheld Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification within days and decided to send Shahbaz Sharif packing as well. Can the overlap between (a) the timing of these judicial decisions and the pace and manner in which the courts conducted their hearings and (b) the ugly power games being played out in the political arena, be explained away as an innocent coincidence? Is it also an accident that throughout Pakistan’s history, judicial decisions have only entrenched status-quo forces?

We have been handed down progressive judgments by our courts emphasising the sanctity of constitutional rule and imperatives of democracy – in cases such as that of Asma Jillani – that were rendered after a dictator had passed along and was no longer on the horizon. And conversely we have been tortured by licentious judicial pronouncements – in cases such as Dosso, Nusrat Bhutto, Zafar Ali Shah and Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan – when the guardians of our Constitution became complicit in its decimation and those subverting the fundamental social and legal contract between the citizens and the state were still in power.

The disease that plagues our justice system is that of pragmatism. When those installed by society at the highest mantle to act as neutral arbiters while sitting in judgment over their peers reduce themselves to the enforcement arm of a corrupt coterie at the helm of the ruling elite, judicial edicts serve the wishes of the powerful and not the needs of justice. All constitutional guarantees offered to citizens and the carefully crafted system of distribution of power and checks and balances between independent pillars of the state are brought to naught by a judiciary that is incapable of functioning as an impartial guardian of rule of law. The outcome of the Sharifs’ eligibility case is not an aberration, but another manifestation of the unhealthy state of our polity where the judicial branch continues to function as an extension of the executive.

(To be concluded)

The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad. He is a Rhodes scholar and has an LL.M from Harvard Law School. Email: [email protected]

He was yesterday on Dunya TV and smacked down PPP leaders .The young guy is really a genius and truly deserved to be a Rhodes Scholar

[Salahuddin_Ayyubi]

The situation in Pakistan is fast turning into the same mess it was in 1971 .... hope India does not have to step in a "break up" a fight ....... that won't be good!!!!

If India ever gets a G- Khujjli EVER! it will glow green in the dark from coast to coast. That was then this is now.

India should worry about its own mess and don'rt worry about us Pakis.

[yazdi]

@desert_bird

He was yesterday on Dunya TV and smacked down PPP leaders .The young guy is really a genius and truly deserved to be a Rhodes Scholar

The guy is my favourite writer as well. I never miss his coloumn in The News on saturdays. Babar was sitting as an observer during the trial proceedings.

[coOoLBreeze]

The situation in Pakistan is fast turning into the same mess it was in 1971 .... hope India does not have to step in a "break up" a fight ....... that won't be good!!!!

no matter what will be the situation inside Pakistan,,,,, we will be ready to take care of all the pathetic Indian wet dreams......now stay to the point and don't go off topic..

[aam_bandha]

@coOoLBreeze

no matter what will be the situation inside Pakistan, we will be ready to take care of all the pathetic Indian wet dreams…now stay to the point and don’t go off topic..

Those who don’t learn from history, are destined to repeat it …

It was in 1971 that Shiekh Mujib was being called a traitor …

Speech invitation to mutiny: Sherry

LAHORE: Information Minister Sherry Rehman has said Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) chief Nawaz Sharif’s speech in Sheikhupura is an open invitation to mutiny and his comments against President Asif Ali Zardari are regrettable, a private TV channel reported on Thursday. According to the channel, Sherry said provoking the government and law enforcement officials by Nawaz was akin to taking the country towards disaster and confrontation, and weakening state institutions. She appealed to the PML-N’s ‘responsible’ leadership to rein in their emotions and avoid making personal comments. She said Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani had said the “review option” was still open, and the PML-N should avoid politics of confrontation. About governor’s rule in Punjab, she said it was imposed under Article 234 of the constitution, the channel quoted its sources. daily times monitor

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Stay focussed !!!

[Spock]

Re: Whats the basis for Sharif's disqualification?

[note] India has zilch to do with this discussion, so please keep unwanted garbage out of this discussion. No further provocations required on that matter[/note]

[kharkar]

Shahbaz Sharif was a defaulter of various financial institutions and also committed contempt of court by storming the Supreme Court in 1998.

so a defaulter and someone who attacked supreme court.
amusing that now he is such a big fan on supreme court independence etc.

[hanibal]

Re: Whats the basis for Sharif's disqualification?

Apart from MQM and Zardari's Party. almost all known politicial figures have condemend the act of federal govt.

I think if Army and other external forces do not interefere this is good time for cleansing.

[kharkar]

Re: Whats the basis for Sharif's disqualification?

The question is can a defaulter and someone who showed ultimate contempt of court by ransacking it not be prevented from public office, just because he is an able politician?

[ehtasab]

@Mister Sinister

The question is can a defaulter and someone who showed ultimate contempt of court by ransacking it not be prevented from public office, just because he is an able politician?

The problem is that these crimes are not limited to Sharif brothers, big chunk of our MNAs, MPAs have committed similar or worse crimes, when is SC going to disqualify them?

[SID_NY]

Still waiting to see a the decision statement from court. Does anyone have any link for it?

[Data]

@Mister Sinister

The question is can a defaulter and someone who showed ultimate contempt of court by ransacking it not be prevented from public office, just because he is an able politician?

The biggest criminal who messed with the judiciary is still sitting in the army house baking himself in the sun house, playing jua, drinking whiskey, smoking his cigar enjoying protocols in the west for being a loyal servant.. Who needs a public office if you can get away with the biggest contempt in the history of the judiciary of the country, with such a luxurious lifestyle.