Forget about the fact that Mr. Zaradri is , like it or nor, the President and is bound by the advice of only the Prime Minister and no one else, although he should consult regarding the appointment of the judges. But consultation’s meaning cannot be stretched to binding advice. And I don’t need anyone including Aitazaz Ahsan to interpret that for me.
And there is a legal precedent of what consultation means.
The Malaysian Constitution requires the executive when operating under the general authority of the Cabinet, to consult with the Conference of Rulers, before making the appointment of members of the Judiciary, the Auditor-General , members of the Election Commission , Public Services Commission and Education Commission.
This very issue was dealt with by the Malaysian Court of Appeal in relation to the elevation of a judge of the High Court of Malaya to the Court of Appeal in the Oral application by Dato’ Seri Anwar [2000}. The meaning of the procedure for judicial appointments contained in Article 122B(1) of the Malaysian Federal Constitution was examined by the Court of Appeal in the following manner:-
The intention of this Article is clear i.e. the Yang di Pertuan Agong must act on the advice of the Prime Minister. However, the Yang di Pertuan Agong is required to consult the Conference of Rulers before making the appointment. To consult means to refer a matter for advice, opinion or views.
The Court of Appeal went further to differentiate “consult” from “consent” as it appears in certain provisions of the Federal Constitution:
“To ‘consult’ does not mean to ‘consent’. The Constitution uses the words ‘consent’ and ‘consult’ separately. For example, the word ‘consent’ is used in Article 159(5) of the Constitution which states that the amendments to certain provisions of the Constitution cannot be passed by Parliament without the ‘consent’ of the Conference of Rulers
The long history of even a misruled country like Pakistan does not have a precedent where the advice of the chief justice is binding on head of the state in matters relating to the appointment of judges. The order of the Iftikhar Chaudhry is a malfide and shows what a corrupt political instrument he is.
Iftikhar Chaudhry was Musharraf’s appointee. Musharraf illegaly usurped power. All his actions were unconstitutional. Even Supreme Court cannot validate violation of Article 6 because Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is within the boundaries of constitution and it has no power to validate a coup.
Therefore, Iftikhar Chaudhry’s appointment needs to be declared void ab initio by a simple resolution of the National Assembly. Thisman who has always acted in concert with the security agencies must be exposed. A first step would be to publish the list of all those journalists who have been on the take.
The axis of establishment, crony judges, and paid media persons must be first exposed to fight against the clandestine operation that is underway to take Pakistan back to 1977.