Plenipotent! Rule of law or rule of judges – by Saad Mansoor
The lawyers’ movement beginning on 9th March 2007 and ending after the restoration of judges on 16th March 2009 was a major milestone in the struggle for rule of law by people of Pakistan. However, little that goes on in the corridors of power of our or any nation is as black and white we would like it to be. For it is clear, that the judges that occupy the benches today have an agenda that steers away from justice and rule of law. The consistent disregard for ethical principles, maxims of law, judicial principles have now given way to blatant violations of Constitution itself.
Sensationalizing of issues
The Lords as I shall call them for I fear being charged for contempt of Court that the courts are so eager to convict for, have developed a practice of sensationalizing the issues at hand. The verdicts are delivered on Friday just like the movies were released in the good old days of Lollywood. The NRO verdict was an exception but the date ‘coincidentally’ chosen for that verdict stood out for other reasons. The people of Pakistan remained glued to screens for hours as the judges took a recess, after they had already reached the verdict. After further hours of deliberation and ensuring that every businessman and investor has been panicked to the hilt, confidence of the nation shaken, a verdict which was expected all along was announced but the damage had been done.
Statements by Judges
The Lords have also developed a habit of giving remarks that are unprecedented. The remarks by judges that have been published as head lines over the year outnumber those by the President or the Prime minister. The remarks are not confined to those given during the proceedings of the Court but also in seminars and visits to the bar associations. That the judge shall speak through his verdicts is apparently not applicable on our Lords, who seem to have taken a leaf from the villainous old hags in the stories of Khawaateen Digest.
Disregard for ethical norms
The Lord are devoid any concept of ethics that need to be observed in the workings of judiciary. The blatant disregard for the principle of seniority was observed in the promotion of Justice Saqib Nisar to the Supreme Court. However, more questionable was that the ethical principle of having parity between provinces was also not observed. The most senior judge after Khwaja Sharif was Chief Justice Peshawar High Court Justice Ijaz Afzal Khan. It may have been Khwaja Shairf’s prerogative to forgo his right but who made the right transferable? Since, one of the two retiring justices was from Peshawar it made sense that he should be sent to Supreme Court. This was not done, making the court acutely imbalanced in terms of ethnic background.
Soldiers of the Chief Justice
The Lords also have decided that it is about time that they should get rid of the ethics regarding the judicial principles where a judge shall not be influence in any way by any other judge. When the President promoted Justice Khwaja Sharif to Supreme Court, a bench was immediately formed to stall the notification. The formation of bench at such short notice, questionable in itself was none the less constitutional. What was not constitutional was the fact that all Justices of the Supreme Court were summoned to Islamabad, where they reportedly met the very next day. The judges met, chatted and in presence of one of the party to the case Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudary apparently reached a verdict in absence of the other party i.e. the government of Pakistan. The following morning the Constitution was further disgraced by its custodians when the judges of Lahore High Court did not hold courts. Whether they officially applied for a leave that the civil court judges did is unclear. They did not however, perform their Constitutional duties. Other notable violations of judicial principles have been the declaration of Judges being the soldiers of CJ Iftikhar and the more notorious talk of chain of command in judiciary being headed by the Chief Justice himself.
Onus of proof
In any judicial system the onus of proof is on the accuser and only after some evidence has been presented against the accused he would be asked to refute the allegation. This was not to be in the case of Jamshed Dasti. The Lords apparently in the absence of substantial evidence decided to take a pop quiz. Asked to recite a few verses and the tables of two he got confused and announced his resignation there by dismissing the case. The Lords assumed the role of the prosecutor and became party to the case showing little regard for rules of law. Justice was not served.
The act of the Court also bordered on violation of the article 13 (b) of the Constitution of 1973, as per which,
No person shall, when accused of an offence, be compelled to be a witness against himself.
NRO verdict
The Lords verdict on 16 December 2009 was judiciary sans grace. The verdict was due to be announced but then delayed as is the practice of the current Court. Reports of shutters being pulled down in Sindh and Balochistan started pouring in and eventually after bringing the nation to the brink of a break down the verdict was delivered.
Much has been written about the poor quality of jurisprudence shown in the verdict but that is another matter. The manner how it was all handled is purely dramatic, was there a need to have a full court? Whether it was right for the Supreme Court to answer questions that were not asked in the petitions? When the Supreme Court itself was on a spree to give free judicial cum Islamic advice in its 300 page verdict, was it not the duty of the Court to clarify its position on the Presidential Indemnity? Why was it that thousands of words were written recounting Suharto, Marcos and others, quotations of Maududi and others but not one word regarding the very article 248 of the Constitution that would need to be interpreted should the cases be reopened? The intention was clearly malafide.
Selective Justice
The Lords may not be hearing cases selectively but it is certainly one hell of a coincidence that the lucky draw always spits out a PPP name. Be it Rehman Malik, Pervaiz Ashraf, Babar Awan, Latif Khosa or any other PPP member, they always get the summons first. The NRO absolved people accused of crimes that were not under purview of NAB, crimes far more heinous than corruption but why only cases under NAB are being considered? The optimists who sincerely want to believe judiciary to be impartial come up with the logic that corruption needs to be tackled from the top. The logic is acceptable, how can a government headed by a corrupt person deliver? But then it is clear that judiciary is not interested in applying the same criteria when it is dealing with the largest province of Pakistan where 57% of the population resides. The numerous cases pending against Khadim e Aala Punjab Shahbaz Sharif are not in the list of cases to be heard anytime soon.
Whither 1973 Constitution
The gross disregard for and rules remind me of the famous quote that the Chief Justice of Pakistan so fervently misquoted during the movement for restoration of judiciary, “absolute power corrupts absolute.” In its wrath the Lords are starting to think that it is about time that they do away with the Constitution. Constitution today is being violated in letter and spirit, the Lords seek to draw their power in their own twisted understanding of right and wrong and free from any form of judicial restraint.
The right to counsel of choice
The right to defend oneself and choose a lawyer of ones own choice is a fundamental right that the Lords have done away with. The conviction of Additional DG FIA Ahmed Riaz Sheikh left many lawyers awestruck. The accused was served the summons to appear before court in the evening of the preceding day and despite the short notice the accused did manage to do so. However, it was in the court room that the Constitution was trampled. When the counsel of the accused Mr Rasheed A Rizvi started presenting the case before the Lords, if media reports are to believed (and since no denial or clarification has been presented by the court I think they are true) the Lords scolded the esteemed lawyer for defending the accused. It is also reported that he was not allowed to complete his arguments and dismissed. The right to counsel of choice and defend oneself was thrown in the bin. The article 10 subsection 1 of the Constitution reads as follows:
10. Safeguards as to arrest and detention.
(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
Independent mind
The actions of the Lords also demonstrated that they lacked another key requirement of a jurist i.e. independence of mind. For this reason Judges who have had appeared as lawyers for an accused refuse to sit in benches as they may not be unbiased. In this case, however, the Lords dislike for the accused was so visible in their desperate attempt to humiliate him and his counsel that I was reminded of the conviction by the all white jury of a black man in the famous Harper Lee novel, To Kill a Mockingbird whereby the only crime of the black man is the color of his skin.
Double jeopardy
Double jeopardy a Constitutional right in many countries including ours and an accepted norm in most is the reasoning that no person shall be punished for the same crime twice. If media reports that Mr Ahmed Riaz Sheikh was convicted upon appeal are to be believed, the question is that since he has completed his imprisonment term why was he sent back to jail? The Lords again were more interested in making a scene than giving any explanation to reduce public anxiety.
The article 13 (a) of the 1973 Constitution states: No person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once.
Why are legislators legislating?
The Lords are indeed very talkative reminding me of the saying that ‘sayana kawa goo khaata hai’ (a close translation would be smart asses, shame themselves), The Lords in their routine streak commented, “have not the parliamentarians got anything else to do that they are after judicial reforms.” Well no sir, they have not got anything else to do. Had you not missed those crucial classes in law school you would have known that legislators legislate. They make laws! While our legislators digress and get funds for development they are none the less the domain of the executive and not legislature. So when they are performing their Constitutional duty you should commend their efforts.
Presidential immunity
The last attack on the Constitution at the behest of the Lords is the consistent ignorance of Article 248 of the Constitution. The desperate attempt to reinterpret it is mind boggling. The Lords now say that when the President has not sought refuge under the immunity, cases be reopened in the first instance. A plain reading of the said article would apprise us that the very judge and prosecutor who orders and indulges in bring a proceeding against the President is violating the Constitution. The President does not need to seek immunity but our Lords who were well aware of the dynamics of the article during the dictatorial rule have now forgotten it. A similar immunity is granted all over the world but the heart believes what it wants to believe.
It is clear that the Lords in their absolute power have misunderstood the people of Pakistan. They forget that the struggle by the people of Pakistan was for the rule of law and Constitution, our beloveddastoor. Should they transgress any further, they should know that the same masses under the guidance of the same leaders and lawyers will be ready flood the streets of Islamabad. And though the cause will remain the same too i.e. rule of law, the target this time will be the rule of judges.
First published at: Green Goat’s Hide
I very sincerely advise the CJ to act like a Judge of The Supreme Court of a country instead of acting as a judge of a reality show like COmedy Circus.
Now some questions for my ppp brothers…
1)Why don’t your government started trial of pervez musharraf..now please don’t answer me by mentioning word reconciliation…I think it is a crime to recon ciliate with a criminal who suspened counstituion.
2)What about black money in swiss banks..from the decleared assets of Mr zardari he cant produce such a huge amount of money?..now in ur answer please don’t start comparison between nawaz sharif and zardari..my question is only related to Zardari.
3)Why at first Benazir and zardari denied that they don’t own surrey palace and later on admitted its ownership?
4)If NRO was for reconciliation then why the national assembly didn’t passed it?Even MQM dint supported it since they were the biggest beneficiary?
5)If PPP government don’t trust CJ then why prime minister always used to say that
“we trust judiciary fully”?
6)If Chief Justice is really cheap justice or saif-ur-rehman chaudhry as said by keyboard warriors here on this website then why your government surrenderd against so called bad guy CJ in the matter of appointment of judges?. Where is your moral courage?. Remove this CJ…what are you waiting for?
7)In the presence of your Prime Minister why your government gave gurad of honour to Mr pervez musharraf who used to say that “ I wont let Benazir come back”..or “I kicked Benazir out of Pakistan”. I think if ppp guys had moral courage in support of their cause then they shouldn’t allow army to do this..may be resing was a better option because a leader lives for his cause not for power.
Why your president denied his written promise about restoration of judiciary…where was his vision..he should had courage to say no to nawaz sharif about restoration of judiciary?
9) Why u always cry like babies against CJ take a firm action against him?
I hope u guys will debate logically and will not show any “Jiyala emotions”.I am here for a debate not for third rated psycho love for leaders since we are analyzing ppp critically not favoring it.
All ideals are being expected from PPP. A ppp worker or even its top heirarchy is treated like second rate citizens. Time and again similar charges are levelled against PPP leaders without any proof. The oppressors are not satisfied even after murdering a whole generation of Chairman Bhutto. This hatred is not for his person rather it is the hatred to the downtrodden & Poor People of Pakistan(PPP). The CJ who is yelling for justice should first of all take up ISI case. He seems to be uninterrested in the Constitution of Pakistan to prevail. Had he been interested in Constitutional rule he should have taken suo moto action against adjournment of Shahid Orakzai’s petition for indfinite period. Iftikhar Ch. is against law of the land. He must resign or the people will peel his skin.
No dear brother on 16 of march 2007 ..the long march was consisted of humans not robots…i dont know which people you are pointing will peel cj’s skin..he is the hero of common man…common man who dont have any swiss accounts or surrey palace…..mushrarraf was also army men aginst him cj took a stand …instead of giving him guard of honour like current government.
@Wide Awake
*16 march 2009
To Mr Wide Awake:
1) Musharraf’s trial will be done at an appropriate moment and it will be PPP who will start the trial. Government is waiting to consolidate. The fact that Supreme Court has not summoned Musharraf in any cases relating to missing persons, lal masjid and Bugti murder case should give you an idea that who is really stopping Musharraf’s trial. Its certainly not PPP.
2) Where did you find declared assets of Mr Zardari? After months of diplomatic effort Obama was able to convince Swiss authorities to handover 100 names but that is the lone exception in history. How would you know that any account is Zardari’s? You cannot because Swiss will never divulge the names of account holders. Pakistani authorities alleged that they were his but it was never proven in a Court of law.
3)When did she ever accept the ownership of the Rockwood Estate? Can you give me a reference so I can look it up
4)NRO was not passed by National Assembly because MQM backed out. And yes they were the biggest beneficiary but have any of their cases been reopened? Read in the above article. The answer is no!
5) PPP says we trust judiciary because you cannot say you distrust it. Its called politics!
6) We cannot remove Chief Justice because Constitution does not permit it. Whether he is cheap or not is for you to decide after reading the article in question.
7) Army gave him the guard of honour and we have seen what boycotting an election would do in 1985. Army will be dealt with in due time.
8)s far as restoration of judges is concerned had Zardari not restored them PPP would have broken into two. There was very strong demand to restore CJ in PPP because it was the Constitution that was at stake. Why Zardari was so adamant not to restore him has become very clear now that he has been restored.
9) We cry and do not take a firm action against him because firm action will cause Army intervention and entire system would be wound up. Our pacifist approach has resulted in Kurd, Tariq Mahmood, Athar Minullah, Rasheed A Rizvi, Munir A Malik and others in fact now even the greatest supporter Hamid Khan to question the actions of Supreme Court of Pakistan and especially the behaviour of Chief Justice.
Mr.wideawake ur memory is faulting it was not 16 march 2007. It was 2009 just a year ago we saw a few thousand people from The Province of Establishment marched towards islamabad. Leading these ignorant people a large no. among which were punjab police officials in plain clothes was a man who is the biggest fraud and Pakistan’s ill-fate. Had the Punjab police really blocked him as it did BB in Nov. 2007 no person would come on road like people of other provinces and even other cities of Punjab. Now that a lot of water has passed under the bridge the people even very close associates of this CJ and real leaders of that movement are expressing their reservations against uncontitutional behaviour of Iftikhar Ch.
Dear Mr. Saad i hope we are having very constructive debate..Now please view my response to your answers…
1) About the trial of Musharraf dear friend don’t try to give statements in future tense. let me take to a journey to your past I mean past of PPP’s current government. Your own PM said on NA floor that he will start musharaaf trial if only all the house will support it. Now tell me man will MQM ,JUI and “QATIL LEAGUE” as called by your leader will support it no way man don’t bluff nation for future. Past depicts the future.Infact PML(N) put a charge on zardari that he was trying to save musharraf by saying to give him amenity for his November 3 acts.Dear Saad Mr. Mush was summoned by courts various times for judges case and for Bugti’s case but I don’t think so government will contact Interpol for his arrest. Will ppp contact?
2) Now for your second answer man believe me I never saw a dream about zardar’s money laundering. It is the report in American senate about that. Asif Ali Zardari never denied that show me his single statement in which he denied it clearly. If his hands are clean then suggest him a move to give permission to Swiss courts to start this case. Man believe me he will rise as a super hero. Now reference
http://www.articlesbase.com/ethics-articles/us-senate-report-on-corruption-and-money-laundering-1590246.html
3)In which world are u living Mr. Zardari owned that man.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=3506
Now if this report is not true that please Mr. Saad go and file a petition against this news group sue them man. If u cant go then please tell ur PPP leaders to do this. Let the yellow journalists pay the price we don’t need reconciliation with these black sheep’s in journalism.
4)Dear Bro my question was not about MQM.My question was that you can see now whole assembly is supporting 18th amendment but why don’t they support NRO.leave nawaz sharif what happened to JUI and MQM.They are close to PPP.they dint support it because by supporting black law like NRO they could be died politically.
5) Don’t teach me politics man. You saying politics is lie or the politics of ppp is lie.i couldn’t understand your logic. Man if u don’t trust him then say it.he will not eat you. May be people will support your point. Morally it is also good to say it cleary what you feel.
6)Yes so you answered my question. Dear friend he is constitutionally our chief justice. you and your leaders have no right to insult him. tell other guys on this site to that he is constitutionally our CJ no one has right to insult him.you can give your comments about his judgments but please don’t get personals and don’t make conspiracy theories about him. Constitution doest not permit you that too. If constitutionally you can’t remove him then constitutionally you cant insult him. I can give you examples of USA UK and INDIA. Please act mature. you missed my part about appointment of judges that’s not fair you answers only your favorite part.
7)Well in response to my question number & you easily said “army gave him guard of honour.What is army’s position constitutionally. Supreme Commander of army is president ZArdari what was he doing then. Army is under government man. why u surrendered to army. I waited for 8 years to see a democratic government to come to rule this country. was that democratic government was too weak? It means your government cant handle army under its order. It hurts the feelings of many seeing mush getting gurd of honor the man who threatened BiBi shaheed on phone.
8)You dint tell me about my question related to vision of Mr. Zaradari about the promise he made in front of nation and later he denied why? If PPP was splitting in two then let me tell you it can still split in two if for a single man this nation face any difficulties.
9) Oh dear why you are mentioning these names now they don’t have any relation with CJ. Who knows them before lawyer’s movement? He is now CJ of Pakistan he don’t need political support. He is a government servant but only faithful to this country and its constitution not to personalities. If your “pacifist approach” is that much working then why all the Supreme Court judges supported him including judges of my lovely Sindh as they did in NRO case?
@Saad
It is realy a nice debate going on thanks for showing interest in my post.I know you are as much faithful to this country as i am.
Dear Akmal i corrected it even before you pointed it out see above.My memory is really good dont worry about it.Dear Akmal a few thousand people. Thats not fair but let me correct you at that time police was under Salman Taseer not Shabaz Sharif .Mr. Taseer transferred all the bearucrats who he think were supporters of PML (N).now police didn’t follow Tasir’s orders that’s strange. where was the say of ppp’s government.PPP’s Faithful governor cant even control Punjab police. I think all the police guys should be fired that they never followed order of government. But dear they follow Muhammad Ali Jinnah and they proved that their job is to defend constitution not to defend leaders unfair commands. And why Rehman Malik gave suggestion to president to call army you were your self calling army in a political matter.
Dear Punjab is not the province of establishment it supported Bhutto it was Punjab’s support that give rise to Z.A Bhutto Shaheed.Well don’t say Kurd or some other lawyers were supporters of CJ millions of people were and they are. by one or two names it makes no difference since as dear Saad mentioned PPP was divided into two so CJ is not a political leader like PPP leaders he also can have differences with lawyers who used to support him but all the judges of supreme court are with him even the judges of as u said “THE province of establishment” Punjab’.Sindh, Kyber-phakhtun khuwa and Balochistan.Now judges matter not the supporters of CJ.Supporters only matter for political parties CJ is governments servant and his duty is to defend constitution.
Mr. ‘WideAwake’ it is a reality that Punjab police did not obey the Governer Ather Walid is an example who refused to arrest PML N hooligans. u say that all judges from four provinces are with Iftikhar just look at the SC website and find which province do these lordships belong (dont go for their domiciles). Two of three judges coming from Balochistan High Court in reality belong to Punjab and one out of three judges from Sindh High Court belongs to Punjab.Even then the CJ sticks with the junior most judge Khalil Ramday with him in cases of “utmost Importance’. What is ur opinion on CJ sitting on ISI case and adjourning the petition of Shahid Orakzai against Shahbaz Sharif. why does CJ meet Shahbaz in thr darkness of night and then threaten the people of talking about the episode. He is shamelessly tramping all norms of decency and Constitution of Pakistan.
ahahaha agains ur breathing in conspiracy theories..your own minster Qaira denied that their was no meeting between cj and shahbaz…plus his name is ather waheed no waleed ….Ather waheed did what Quaid-e-Azam once said
Service is the back-bone of the State. Government are formed. Governments are defeated, Prime Ministers come and go, Ministers come and go, but you stay on, and therefore, there is a very great responsibility placed on your shoulders.
(Advice to civil officers, Peshawar, April 14, 1948)
okie you ask me about orakzai case…tel me what rehman malik is doing for missing persons…goverment is least bothering about them …goverment dont care about what Sc say for missing person…..Bdway CJ dint give musharraf guard of honour..it was current goverment..thanks
Mr Wide Awake:
The debate needs to be fought on ground realities, which you choose to ignore but I’ll list some of them that we cannot ignore,
a. Army is the most powerful institution in this country, it has hanged one Prime minister and exiled another. If you choose to ignore this fact that current government cannot go against army in current circumstances and has to wait until it consolidates things then you are living in a fool’s paradise.
b. We do not trust courts, the courts are showing bias beyond doubt. Should we bring any suit what so ever we do not expect justice. Our suspicion is not without reason some of which you can find in the article.
1. MQM and Q League will not oppose if the civilian setup is strong enough. Musharraf was summoned, his servants refused to accept the notice following which court was to publish notices in London newspapers, his current residence. The court NEVER published them.
2. I have been unable to find text of the committee meetings findings, the link that you provide is written by a blogger, in fact most links are written by Pakistani bloggers. Kindly provide a link to the sub-committees report so I can comment.
3. The News is not a reference. Nor is Jang or Geo sir. And I asked you when did BB accept the ownership of the estate.
4. Your question was not about MQM, ANP never refused support and JUI remained neutral. Q and N leagues were never with PPP and after Nawaz Sharif’s last minute attempt to sabotage you still think they are all supporting 18th amendment?
5. What gave you the impression that I was teaching you anything? But I stand by my explanation, if they start saying they don’t trust the judiciary it will lead to chaos, an occasional jab is fine but you can not announce a war against it. And yes the judges are already trying to sabotage, read the article, in fact comment and refute the points within the article will you? I think you do not disagree with any of them.
6. Constitutionally I can insult anyone as long as it is not libel, slander or blasphemy. Above are valid points which merit a response. Since judges are unavailable why don’t you give it a shot? You will find that most of the above points implicating judiciary have been accepted by foremost leaders of the lawyers movement.
7. Again, firstly we know that mush threatened Bibi and we despise him but we also know that when is the time to be patient and when is the time to fight back. In 1990 Bibi went to courts to get 8th amendment annulled, she respected opposition but the result was mid-night jackal. As you can see the pacifist approach has worked out to be more efficient. With the 18th amendment passed, provinces will have more autonomy but you refuse to see the implications of it. Had we gone for confrontation in the first instance, there would have been no 18th amendment and no NFC.
8. Indeed it was his vision or in fact mere knowledge of internal matters that he knew that Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudary’s stand against Musharraf was a drama played out by army to oust him. Yes I know Mush was the army chief but he was becoming a liability and had to go. Zardari delayed it as much as possible even if he had to lie a couple of times because had these army puppets been restored earlier they would have sabotaged government which they are still trying to do. Since global and local economic situation is not likely to improve anytime soon it would have been very easy to create unrest which army and judiciary would have worked out to their advantage.
9. On the contrary sir most of these names were well known in the educated class of Pakistan. It was the CJs name which was unknown. All the judges are not supporting him. NRO verdict was a 300 page verdict and there were notes of dissent but media chooses not to highlight them. In any judgment there in simple words you can disagree on different counts but you have to give a bottom line yes or no, while the bottom line yes or no was unanimous there were disagreements on other counts. Also for your information current Supreme Court has 13 ethnic Punjabi judges out of 17. The ad hoc judge Mr Ramday also hails from Punjab bringing the figure 14/18. None of the four other judges is ethnic Sindhi.
Mr. wideawake i respectfully say that u r not WIDE AWAKE otherwise u would not ask about actions of rehman malik. If one goes wrong does it mean other should also go wrong. The Supreme Court must not act selectively. There is no relation between NRO judgement and Shahid orakzai’s petition. Delaying the hearings is making an unconstitutinal ( if finally SC decides in favour of the petitioner) rule perpetuate. Who will be responsble for tramping the constitution which clearly prohibit any unelected person to be minister or PM or CM. It must be decide on priority. Independent Judiciary is a farce, the judges must obey the constitution and law of the land. They should interpret constitution rather than frame. This bunch of judges is a bunch of hooligans armed with contempt of court.
Mr. ‘wideawake’ will u please give ur word that if the SC decides in favour of petitioner u will demand for trial of CJ and other judges under article 6. Pl. read article 223 of the constitution. U will admit that it is an open/shut case. There is nothing to have lenghthy hearings or arguments. Shahbaz sharif was member of Punjab assembly from Bhakkar. As soon as he was declared a member from PP10 Rawalpindi his member ship from Bhakkar became void but he resigned from PP10 and hence he is no more a member of punjab assembly. That’s it. Why are the judges sitting over the petition. why dont they decide? it is their foremost duty. They can wait for ten years for implementation of NRO decision if they dont announce ISI case verdict reseved on 12 Oct. 1999.
This CJ was accomplice in allowing Pervaz Musharraf to rule for three years without elections and also for ammendment in the constitution. This very crime is liabled to be punished under article 6. If President is hiding behind article 248 The CJ is hiding behind articles 270C and article 260 (definition of Consultation). The President has the right to pardon, reprieve and respite, and to remit, suspend or commute any sentence passed by any court. tribunal or authority. (article 45). In this context i dare give a suggestion that the president should declare decision of Sajjad ali shah on 20 march 1996( mother of all evils) as null and void.