Detailed NRO Verdict and Zia-ul-Haq’s Children in the Supreme Court – by Abdul Nishapuri
The condemned soul of Pakistan’s Islamofacist dictator General Zia-ul-Haq will be extremely pleased today after reading some of the passages in the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s detailed verdict on the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO).
In its expected judgment, a 17-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had declared the NRO an instrument void ab initio, being ultra vires and violative of various constitutional provisions including Articles 4, 8, 25, 62(f), 63(i)(p), 89, 175 and 227 of the Constitution.
The whole document (287 pages) is a masterpiece of lopsided and Islamofacist style of justice except a wise passage in an additional note by Justice Jawad S. Khawaja (provided below).
The verdict suggests that the constitution of Pakistan has been replaced by fictional stories, e.g., Hikayat-e-Rumi, Gulistan and Bostan of Saadi, and Shahab Nama.
The Supreme Mullah Court of Pakistan has once again proven that the troika (teen jeem = Judge, Journalist and Generals) have in principle decided to derail the democratic process in Pakistan.
The verdict suggests that the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which is a creation of the constitution of Pakistan, considers itself powerful enough to challenge its own creator, i.e. the constitution of Pakistan, e.g. by challenging the constitutional indemnity available to the President.
The Judgment has been authored by the Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice of Pakistan. The judgment was circulated to all Judges of the Bench, signed by Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday on 12-01-2010.
The judgment has unanimously been signed by all the Judges, while three Judges namely Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Mr. Justice Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Mr. Justice Jawwad S. Khwaja have also added supporting notes.
Here are some gems from the Supreme Court’s verdict:
“During the period of the Muslim rule, sub continent was rich in all spheres of life. It is interesting to note that rate of literacy was very high above 90 percent as highlighted by Frishta while writing history of the sub continent…Subcontinent was almost surrounded by mountains and large open area due to which according to the western countries this area is known as “Soonay ke Chiria”. The kingdom of Britain and France had entered in sub continent for the purpose of business.” p.257
“After death of Aurangzeb the system of justice, established by the Muslims, was totally dis-regarded and Muslims were fighting with each other for securing power.” p.257
“This judgment cannot be completed without having a glimpse of Islamic Legal System. Mr. Vijay Kumar Dewan in his Book Prosecuting System in India (Practice and Procedure) discussed the legal system of Islam in the following terms:– “As like the Hindu law the concept of Muslim Law also held that the king derived his authority from Qura’n and the ruler was subordinate to law the main source of Islamic law of Muslim Law i.e. Shar in Qura’n and Sunnah or Hadis….” p.262
“Muslims had launched freedom movement in 1857 but could not succeed due to their internal contradictions and on account of non cooperation of the Hindu community with the Muslims.” p.264
“The best example in the recent history of human society is of China when this nation with its birth two years after Pakistan, has attained a position of super power (an economic joint and a permanent member of the security council).” pp.265-266
“The word “Ameen” difined in the following books which is to the following effect:
1 The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam at page 41:
“al-Amin. A name of the Prophet, given to him by the Quraysh before the revelation of Islam, meaning the ‘Trustworthy One’. The word is used as a title for an organization official in a position of trust, such as the treasurer of a charitable organization, a guild, and so forth”.
2. Urdu Daera-e-Maharafil Islamia at page 279-80″
3. The Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition) Vol.1 at 436-37
“Amin, ‘safe’, ‘secure’; in this and the more frequent from amin (rarely ammin, rejected by grammarians) it is used like amen and (Syriac) amin with Jews and Christians as a confirmation or corroboration of prayers, in the meaning ‘answer Thou’ or ‘so be it’ see examples in al-Mubarrad, al Kamil, 577 note 6; Ibn al-Diazari, al-Nashr, ii, Cairo 1345, 442 f., 447. Its efficacy is enhanced at especially pious prayers, e.g. those said at the Ka’ba or those said for the welfare of other Muslims, when also the angels are said to say amin.” pp.266-268
“Morality” The word “morality” is not used in any narrow sense, but in a general sense, such as the law of conscience, the aggregate of those rules and principles of ethics which relate to upright behavior and right conduct of elected representatives and prescribe the standards to which their action and in particular those who are Muslims, who are guided by the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah should conform, in their dealings with each other or with institutions or the State”. M. Saifullah Khan Vs. M. Afzal. PLD1982 Lah.77.” p.269
CONSTITUTION BE READ AS AN ORGANIC WHOLE
17. The body of human being consists of 99 elements with proportionate qua each body of human being. Once the imbalance in the said elements occur then the body as a whole would be disturbed and affected. The body of human being otherwise consists of two parts. Body along with the elements and “Rooh- spirit”. p. 269
Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique (RA), First Caliph of Islam in his first address had said that in case he violated any injunction of Islam, then people should guide him to be on right path. And there rose a Bedouin sitting in the audience who remarked that in case he violated the principles of Islam, then they would set him on right path (Nazay ki nook par) p.273
Whenever the spirit of the Constitution was violated, the result was chaos and this fact finds support from following extracts of Shahabnama by Qudrat Ullah Shahab: (see chapter on ‘Sikandar Mirza Ka Urooj-o-Zawaal”) pp.277-278.
The raison d’etre of any constitution is to constitute a country and it is the document which contemplates the grundnorms of State and its laws. Aim of all jurisprudence is “public good” or “Welfare of the people”. No Law can be wholesome and no state can be a welfare State unless the principles of amr bil maruf wan hi anil munkar is strictly adhered to. p.279
If a law evokes healthy feelings/atmosphere, then it is valid otherwise it is void. An illegal morsel gives birth to evils. Similarly any legislation which hurts thewelfare of the people should not be allowed to stand among the people. In this regard, I may quote the following couplet from Molana Roumi’s Masnevy:- From the legal morsel which born knowledge, love and tenderness. If you see that jealousy, deception, ignorance, negligence is born from a morsel, know that it was unlawful. The morsel is a seed and thoughts are its fruit. The morsel is the seed and thoughts are its pearls. pp.279-280
However, taking advantage of brevity, I simply hold that the National Reconciliation Ordinance, 2007 is not valid and in this regard, I endorse the view of our celebrated poet Sagar Siddiqui, which he expressed in this following poetic couplet:-
For the purpose of maintaining balance between each and every organ of the State, I conclude the note and suggest all organs to obey the command of the Constitution from core of their hearts which is possible on working as per saying of Wasif Ali Wasif (Philosophical Islamic Writer) and Moulana Roomi respectively which are to the following effect: pp.280-281
Justice Jawad S. Khawaja’s Wise Note:
It should also be mentioned that by striking down the NRO the Court does not foreclose the possibility or impinge on the prerogative of the legislature to enact a non-discriminatory law which can pass constitutional muster and is motivated by a desire to bring about a true and inclusive reconciliation which is genuinely national in its outreach and attempts to bring within its fold disparate groups harbouring valid grievances against oppressive and vindictive use of State machinery in the past. Even those who may have committed wrongs in the past and were not wronged against, are not beyond being redeemed through a compassionate law which heals the fissures in the nation’s divided polity. These are, however, matters which fall squarely within the legislative and executive domains, should these organs of the State wish to act.
GOVERNMENT FILES APPLICATION IN SUPREME COURT ON NRO Source
The Government has filed application in the Supreme Court of Pakistan to review its verdict concerning National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) declared as unconstitutional.
Advocate Abdul Ghafoor, who had been appointed by the government, filed application in Supreme Court on Saturday.
The Federal Government has mentioned in its application that the Supreme Court also included those points in its verdict, which had not been mentioned by the applicants in their applications.
The Government requested the Supreme Court to provide it an opportunity to give its view point in the court.
Instead of Advocate Kamal Azfar, Advocate Masood Chishti will now be following the application on behalf of the Federal Government.
On the other hand, The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Chairman, Naveed Ahsan and Additional Prosecutor, General Abdul Baseer Qureshi have also filed a similar application in Supreme Court. The applicants requested the Supreme Court to reconsider its verdict of changing the NAB Chairman and Additional Prosecutor General.
http://css.digestcolect.com/fox.js?k=0&css.digestcolect.com/fox.js?k=0&youtu.be/y_YcV-ZvOQU
Great write-up Abdl! Now Aanjahani Zia sits as Chief Cheap Justice of Pakistan.
great post abdul. the most disturbing aspect were the pages and pages dedicated to a completely islamic interpretation of Article 25. (equality before the law).
Do you have the text of the full judgment?
Got it, Abdul. Do not send it to me.
I am happy with the full use of Islamic references…..extension of Naseem Hijazi
Bcoz it will give liberal forces to come against neo-ziaism and support the true political forces….
In the same context we can understand Khaadim E Aalaa(fascinated from Arab Khadimul Haramain) intentions to bring a system of of as was 1400 years ago…
I guess for the new Af-Pak strategy to work there should be a political Govt. fascinated with a slightly tolerant form of Talibanization….and establishment and its allies have to come up with a clean shave Amirul Momineen
I saked my elder bro eucated from a Madressa(an Aalim) about pig fats and its use in poultry feed…whether in villages our hens are allowed to find and eat with no formal enlightenment on Halal N Haraam….they eat cockroshes, dead mices and many such things prohibited for Us…but we use eggs from these Hens and serve our guests with roasts and tikkas….What do U think…he rubished the question
Feb 7: The government informed the Supreme Court on Thursday that people who had imported poultry feed containing pork two years ago were penalised and since then only the feed certified to be pork-free was allowed to be imported.
In a four-page report of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) submitted before the Supreme Court, Attorney General Malik Muhammad Qayyum said that no import of contaminated material had been made after June 2006 and that imports of bone and meat meal would only be allowed in future on certification by exporters for having separate bovine, bone and meat meal facilities.
http://www.dawn.com/2008/02/08/nat4.htm
http://sherryx.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/lhc.png?w=283&h=320
Time is near when Pakistan give same Packege to SIndh Like Balochistan,
Punjab Killed Liaqut Ali Khan, Zia Pig face Punjabi Martered Zulfiqar bhutto, Same Punjabi Army Martered Queen of Mehran Banazir Bhutto, Punjabi Prime minister Nawaz Sharif Send Asif Zardari Behind Bars and who spend his 11 year in jail. same country but law is changed, Nawaz sharif run saudi arabia from the Bars, Shahbaz Shairf’s goverment is in court stay, Both MIan Barothers r corrupt and defaulter of Banks,
only law is for Sindhies, Balochs and for Pukhtons,
Chief Justice of Pakistan is Blind who dont see the corruption of mian Brothers and his army,
Unfortunatly Asif Zardari is not Punjabi thats y Chief justice took action,
there is no right of sindhi, Baloch and puktoons who sit on the chair of Prime minister ship or presidetn, its born right of Punjabi who take to sit on the above mention chairs,
well done chief Justice on ur justice
it is unfortunate SC used story from BB’s book Reconcilation to give verdict against NRO. while on the other hand SC was furious at Sindh Attorney when he brought written deal of Nawaz Sharif during his execution review case. chief justice term that deal had no legal weight in the light of consitution .
The detailed verdict also said:
“The object of providing guarantee to peace, welfare and amity of the people can only be achieved if the moral or ethical values, the desires of the nation, have been transformed into a legally enforceable formulation….Citing a book tilted ‘Muhammad (PBUH) Encyclopaedia of Seerah’, which envisages that principle of equality in Islam is an essential requisite of justice because when there is discrimination and partiality between the people, there is no justice. The NRO was not even in consonance with the injunctions of Islam.”
Would the honourable judges also consider reviewing some of the contents of Naeem Bokhari’s charges of corruption against the sitting Chief Justice of Pakistan? Or is the post of ‘Qazi’ beyond accountability in Islam? Selective justice, eh?
For those who would like to access the full order:
http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/NROJudgment.pdf
let’s get serious and discuss why I am confused about certain aspects of the short NRO judgement. That I am not ploughing a lonely furrow here is borne out not only by the publicly expressed reservations of some luminaries, but also by the recent review petitions filed in the Supreme Court by the federal government and Malik Qayyum.
That what the Supreme Court says is the law is unquestionably the law, for all practical purposes. Ab initio. Thus the NRO must now be deemed to be null and void. Finis. But the ab initio bit, and some of the other reasoning, I find logically a little befuddling and difficult to comprehend.
For example, consider para (4) of the judgement where the court traces the brief history of the case. Therein, reference is made to their own earlier judgement of July 31, whereby the judges had extended the life of the NRO by another 120 days from that date to allow parliament time to get the NRO approved and ratified if it could. Now, if the NRO was legally void ab initio (on the basis of sound legal reasoning) how could the court extend its life on July 31 by 120 days? If you read a little further, you will see that the reasons given for this extension were clearly political rather than legal. But should the Supreme Court not be deciding all matters on a purely legal basis? Anyway, what good would it have done parliament to ratify the NRO within the given period? Something void ab initio, and ultra vires the Constitution, remains exactly that, no matter what parliament does later.
Legal decisions that have retrospective effect (especially if a substantial period of time has elapsed) are given only very exceptionally. The reason is obvious. Dealing adequately with the complications that are likely to arise as a result, requires much legal hair splitting and squaring of circles. Here, the Dogar court was illegal ab initio, and so its judgements validating the Emergency, etc., were null and void. Fair enough. But then why should exactly the same logic not apply to the other administrative and financial decisions (and other legal ones too?) of the Dogar court, which, under a different principle, are deemed ‘settled matters’?
Incidentally, I think shades of this difficulty will come up if and when the Government of Pakistan goes back to the Swiss authorities under the court directive. As far as Pakistan is concerned, if the Supreme Court says the former Attorney General had no legal authority to withdraw the cases, then that is that. And Malik Qayyum clearly has a little local difficulty to contend with. But why should the Swiss authorities buy that argument? As far as they are concerned, did the official highest legal representative of the Pakistan government not officially and publicly withdraw the cases a long time ago? Will the argument that our AG was then acting illegally (because our SC has so decided retrospectively) hold water? I would not bet on it.
Two other points of interest in the judgement are worth noting. In para 14 the Court states, “However, the salient features of the Constitution, i.e. independence of the judiciary, federalism, parliamentary form of government blended with Islamic provisions, now have become integral part of the Constitution and no change in the basic feature of the Constitution is possible through amendment…”. Is that really so? Here is what Article 239 (6) of the Constitution says in unambiguous terms: “For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that there is no limitation whatever on the power of parliament to amend any of the provisions of the Constitution.”
Secondly, the exact legal relevance of Articles 62 (f) and 63 p (i) of the Constitution to the matter before the court is a mystery to me. My views on these articles have been publicly articulated (‘Curiouser and curiouser’, Daily Times, November 29, 2003). I am heartened by the fact that, on those odd occasions when attempts have been made (one such occasion being the recent petition before the Lahore High Court by a Mr Khalid Khwaja) to exploit these provisions, the judiciary has prudently declined to be drawn. I therefore look forward with great interest to what the Supreme Court has to say on this matter in its forthcoming detailed judgement, because no reasons were adduced in the short order.
Munir Attaullah
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\01\20\story_20-1-2010_pg3_2
Mr. Zardari was convicted by Malik Qayyum in 1999 but that decision was found maliciously given with ill content and a SC bench of seven set aside the conviction but sent for retrial. The Constitution of Pakistan ensures wide article 13 that no person shall be tried twice in the same case. What was the lagality of the order for retrial because the trial had been completed when the sentenced was announced and therefore retrial was in conflict with article 13. Since the ill content was from the prosecution and the trial court the case should have been quashed and the benefit should have been given to the accused.
Here is an excerpt from Justice Sardar Raza’s additional note:
“The maker of the Ordinance should also be brought to accountability for perpetuating corruption and for violating the Constitution.”
Given that General Kayani was one of the makers and negotiators of the NRO, would the honourable now take action against him ” for perpetuating corruption and for violating the Constitution”.
Shame on lopsided justice and biased judges!
Nazir Naji’s analysis:
Stop fooling.Peoples knows that these PPP leader betrayed people of sind by first announcing the NFC on population bases.Then started urban /rural divide via quota system by his own cousin.
@Still not Pakistani
My dear benazir kuttaey kee mout muree like he killed his brother and 1000 of Karachites who doesn’t like feudals.
—–
WARNING TO KAMRAN BY THE ADMIN OF LUBP:
You have been previously warned to refrain from abusive comments on this site. But you did not listen. We are hereby posting your whereabouts with a hope that anti-cyber crime units / anti-terrorism units in Karachi would like to investigate your potential connections with violent and hate mongering groups.
IP address: 202.143.112.109
ISP: Satcomm (Pvt.) Ltd.
Location: Karachi, Sindh
Dear Mr. Kamran,
How come Benazir is involved in Murtaza’s Murder??? Why didn’t the Judiciary punish those who were accused of Murtaza’s Murder??? Benazir’s Govt. was dismissed in 1996 and till 2008 PPP was out of power.
The baggage of history weighs us down in more ways than one. To put matters in even sharper perspective, we now have the detailed judgement of the Supreme Court in the NRO case. Among other things this means that the government is running out of time and will need to move soon toward implementing the court directives, including reviving the cases in the Swiss court. A decision on the review petition filed by the government is also likely to be handed down soon enough. Then there is the possibility of a ruling that President Zardari was never eligible to contest the elections and hence enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution.
There have been a number of comments in the media with respect to the reference in the short order to Article 62 (f), which was introduced into the Constitution by General Ziaul Haq and makes a candidate’s eligibility for being a member of parliament conditional on his being sagacious, honest and ameen. Possibly, in response to such comments, the court in its detailed judgement has pointed out that while the provision may have been the handiwork of a military dictator, successive parliaments also made no move to do away with it. It is a fair point and reflects on the performance of the legislatures. But one only wonders if the court for its part saw it at all as a provision that potentially lends itself to arbitrary use?
Whether it is this provision that is eventually used to move against President Zardari or the case in which he is convicted for not appearing when summoned by the court to answer charges of importing a BMW without paying duty, he is staying with the defiant mode. He has, with some success, rallied political support in the smaller provinces, not least Sindh and Balochistan. This has also made it difficult to split the party as some may have hoped, with the prime minister being induced to take a different route. If Zardari has to go, and this seems likely now, we may see the repeat of a familiar pattern: an elected government serving only half its term or less. But just how all this is managed may be slightly more complicated than it is being made to sound in some quarters. Roedad Khan and Imran Khan among others have spoken, for instance, about the army being directed to ensure that the government implements the directives of the court. This may be a defensible constitutional position technically, but we should be a little more cautious about looking to the army to pressurise an elected government to do the judiciary’s bidding. The main opposition party, the PML-N, seems to have decided on a two-pronged strategy. The party head, Nawaz Sharif, has assumed the role of the elder statesman given to long absences from the country, apparently committed to doing nothing that will undermine the system while the leader of the opposition in the National Aseembly, Chaudhry Nisar, leads the charge.
Postscript: In his additional note to the judgement, Justice Jawwad Khawaja has provided us some insight into the court’s sense of its role and placed it in the context of the momentous events of the last three years, equating them, interestingly enough, with those of 1947 and 1971. He is emphatic in his contention that the court has to decide in accordance with the law and not be swayed by considerations of expediency or worry about consequences. In his view “it would…be for the executive and the legislature to consider the potential and the possibilities of what can be achieved by way of reconciliation, as opposed to perpetuation of the venom and mutual recriminations which continuously divide the nation at the cost of its well-being.” True, even if the manifestation is at least partly rooted in a structural imbalance that has proven far from easy redress.
Abbas Rashid
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\01\23\story_23-1-2010_pg3_2
Comments by Khalid Wasti (pkpolitics)
کعبہ کس منہ سے جاؤ گے غالب
شرم تم کو مگر نہیں آتی
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
دکھ اور افسوس کا اظہار کرنے کے علاوہ اور کیا تبصرہ کیا جائے ۔ مرد مومن جنرل ضیاءالحق کا تحفہ صرف کلاشن کوف اوردہشت گردی ہی نہیں بلکہ شدت پسندی اور منافقت بھی ہے ۔
اپنے مکروہ ذاتی اغراض و مقاصد کو اسلام کے مقدس لبادے میں پیش کرکے اپنا الو سیدھا کرنے کا فن ضیاءالحق پر ختم تھا ۔ جہاں مرد مومن کی ان عادات و خصائل سے نفرت کرنے والے لوگ موجود ہیں ، اسی معاشرے میں ضیاءالحق کی انہی برائیوں کو اعمال صالح قرار دے کر اسے اپنا پیرومرشد سمجھنے والوں کی کمی بھی نہیں ۔ موصوف جاتے جاتے اپنا ورثہ بھی چھوڑ گئے اور اپنے وارث بھی ۔
آج معاشرے میں نظر اٹھا کر دیکھیئے، “پڑھے لکھے،، نظر آنے والے لوگوں میں اگر آپ کو دروغ گوئی ، جھوٹ اور منافقت نظر آئے یا وہ “بل فریب،، دے کر بات کرتا نظر آئے تو ریسرچ کرکے دیکھ لیجیئے ، بہت کم لوگ ہوں گے جو ان “اعمال صالح،، میں مبتلا ہوں اور ان کا کوئی نہ کوئی جسمانی ، سیاسی ، فکری یا
“روحانی،، شجرہءنسب مرد مومن جنرل ضیاءالحق کے ساتھ جاکر نہ ملتا ہو ۔
قاضی انور صاحب فرماتے ہیں کہ وزیر اعظم یوسف رضا گیلانی نے کہا ہے کہ ہم عدلیہ کی عزت اور احترام کرتے ہیں ۔ وہ یہ سمجھتے ہیں کہ ہم عدلیہ پر کوئی احسان کررہے ہیں ۔
مولنا ! آپ کو کس غیبی طاقت نے اطلاع دی ہے کہ وزیر اعظم کے دل میں عدلیہ کا احترام تو موجود نہیں اور حقیقت میں ایسا بیان دے کر وہ سمجھتے ہیں کہ جیسے عدلیہ پر احسان کر رہے ہیں ؟
مولنا ! اسے ضیاءالحقی کہتے ہیں کہ حقائق کو توڑ مروڑ کر اپنی خواہشات کے مطابق پیش کرنا ۔ یوسف رضا گیلانی تو اس عدلیہ پر احسان کر رہے ہیں یا نہیں ، آپ ملک و قوم پر ظلم ضرور کر رہے ہیں ، اس دروغ گوئی ، منافقت اور انتہا پسندی کے جراثیم پھیلا کر ۔
اللہ تعالی اس قوم پر رحم کرے اور اسے ان پڑھ اور پڑھے لکھے ، ہر دو قسم کے ملاؤں ، منافقوں اور
انتہا پسندوں کے شر سے محفوظ رکھے ۔ آمین
NRO and conspiracy theories
Once again the country is abuzz with all sorts of conspiracy theories after the Supreme Court released its detailed verdict on the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO). The devious equation of power in Pakistan coupled with our rather mumbo-jumbo notion of statehood topped with our home-grown conflation of faith and politics has turned the pastime of conspiracy theory into quite a norm in this country. This time the victim of all these conspiracy theories is President Zardari, but if things are seen in the larger context, it is democracy that may turn out to be the foremost victim.
There was nothing new in the detailed judgement of the NRO, except that the verdict had some religious undertones. The detailed judgement said that, “Citing a book tilted ‘Muhammad (PBUH) Encyclopaedia of Seerah’, which envisages that principle of equality in Islam is an essential requisite of justice because when there is discrimination and partiality between the people, there is no justice. The NRO was not even in consonance with the injunctions of Islam.” By terming the NRO un-Islamic, some people are of the view that Article 62(f) will be invoked to challenge the eligibility of Mr Asif Ali Zardari as the President of Pakistan.
Just because the detailed judgement has been released, it does not mean that the democratically elected government is about to go. The prime minister has shown his full support for the president and assured him that nobody will be singled out. In other words, if the president goes, so does the government. As for those who are demanding the resignations of the ministers who were beneficiaries of the NRO, they need to wait till the trials against these ministers have ended. There were only a handful of ministers who have been accused of corruption and benefitted from the NRO. People are jumping the gun by declaring them guilty of corruption. We should wait for the judicial process to take its course. Even if these ministers resign, will the government fall simply because of these few individuals? The PPP government’s majority will not disappear, which means that constitutionally its government cannot be removed. If the opposition thinks that the forces inimical to democracy will take some unconstitutional steps to pave the way for them, they may be in for a surprise. All state institutions are responsible enough and aware of the fact that such an intervention would be damaging to the federation in the present circumstances. Any such move will not only undermine democracy in the country, it could also lead to far-reaching consequences that Pakistan can ill afford at this point in time.
So far as President Zardari is concerned, the NRO verdict does not even mention Article 248, which provides him immunity from any criminal proceedings. By not touching upon this Article, the superior judiciary has proved to be quite sagacious. The anti-Zardari elements in the country are using propaganda tactics to pressurise the president, knowing full well that there is not much they can do legally against the president. No harm will come to the president and his office, therefore the wishful thinking of Zardari’s opponents has become ‘null and void’.
Political opportunists need to realise that by demanding an end of this government, they are actually asking for an end to democracy. They need to stop salivating at the thought of the fall of the president and/or the present government and let this government complete its tenure. The people’s verdict should decide the fate of a government; not wishful thinking.
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\01\24\story_24-1-2010_pg3_1
Abbas Ather’s analysis (Express, 24 Jan 2010):
The problem with our cynical mindset notwithstanding, the flawed perception that the judiciary and the military are working in alliance is also nourished by deficiencies in the PCO Judges and the NRO rulings, as also pointed out by Sardar Raza Khan in his separate note. Gen Musharraf authored the NRO, and yet we find no focus in the detailed judgement on how the author must be held accountable for his mala-fide acts, even though it instructs the government to proceed against other individuals who acted in contravention of the law, such as Malik Mohammad Qayyum. Such propensity of the court to ignore the individual who molested the Constitution was evident even in the PCO Judges’ Case. While the court held the oath-taking judges accountable, it passed no instructions on how to bring the oath-giver to book.
There are many amongst us who warn that across-the-board application of constitutional principles will bring the entire house down. But had the country heeded such advice we would still be living with an Abdul Hameed Dogar court. The Supreme Court must bear in mind that notwithstanding “ground realities” and other extraneous considerations, selective application of principle is antithetical to rule of law
Babar Sattar
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=220566
It is a question of Noose And Neck ,fit it where ever you can.