Hitman
Senior T20I Player
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Runs
- 17,372
-
Contact the PP Team
Nawaz Sharif blasts Pakistan judiciary for his ouster
- Thread starter Hitman
- Start date
Leo23
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2017
- Runs
- 1,067
my question is:
who will do the "EHTISAAB" of judiciary? are they angels?
what about the military?
what about the other corruption politicians?
who will do the "EHTISAAB" of judiciary? are they angels?
what about the military?
what about the other corruption politicians?
WebGuru
Senior ODI Player
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Runs
- 21,339
- Post of the Week
- 3
Nawaz is actually a changed man now last time when a verdict came against him he attacked the Supreme Court building with his goons and Chief Justice had to run to save his precious life. In the end CJ was thrown out and replaced with a yes man and verdict was changed...
GoUgandaCranes
Time Pass Post of the Week Winner
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2013
- Runs
- 5,110
- Post of the Week
- 9
this time he is only throwing mindless and dumb tweets on twitter through her daughters account. so much change.
WebGuru
Senior ODI Player
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Runs
- 21,339
- Post of the Week
- 3
You have to start somewhere...
WebGuru
Senior ODI Player
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Runs
- 21,339
- Post of the Week
- 3
A blast from past... Here is the video footage of PMLN attack in Supreme Court building back in 1997 when Nawaz Sharif was second tiem Prime Minister
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rnh_8tw8Znk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rnh_8tw8Znk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
WebGuru
Senior ODI Player
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Runs
- 21,339
- Post of the Week
- 3
Actually this time he is being used by his own daughter as a pawn...She is pulling all the strings and running the show behind the screen but so far she looks like a failure instead of becoming the next PM
Leo23
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2017
- Runs
- 1,067
nothing will happen from here on
the rest will walk scot free
qurbani ka bakra sharif family ko bana diya
WebGuru
Senior ODI Player
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Runs
- 21,339
- Post of the Week
- 3
The are not innocent...
Slog
Senior Test Player
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
- Runs
- 28,984
- Post of the Week
- 1
Slog
Senior Test Player
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
- Runs
- 28,984
- Post of the Week
- 1
you think sharif family is innocent?
Pakpak
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Runs
- 9,232
What he means is when his favorites judges sacked PPP's Gilani in 2012, for a ridiculous reason, then judiciary was fine. Infact Princess was lauding the 'rule of law' back then, those tweets were posted here, but when its Baadshah Salaamat's turn its conspiracy time!
Pakpak
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Runs
- 9,232
Wait for the....''Who said I support PMLN why does everything against PTI have to be against PMLN''. I have him on ignore, its tedious to read his semi-literate garbage.
Slog
Senior Test Player
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
- Runs
- 28,984
- Post of the Week
- 1
Five judges would need at minimum five strokes you numpty.
Cant even get that right. No wonder Calibri gate happened
Slog
Senior Test Player
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
- Runs
- 28,984
- Post of the Week
- 1
Why are the patwaris so ashamed of publically saying they support PML-N?
WebGuru
Senior ODI Player
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Runs
- 21,339
- Post of the Week
- 3
IMHO Nawaz seriously thinks votes give you a 5 years license to loot, murder and do all the illegal things for next 5 years and you don't need to answer anyone...
Slog
Senior Test Player
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
- Runs
- 28,984
- Post of the Week
- 1
And then they become the thekaydaar of jamhooriat
Jhamooriyat asal mai khatrey mai hai. But from these nooras who think winning elections means you are a Mughal emperor
Bewal Express
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Runs
- 39,700
To be fair to him, his comments have not been anything like what you expect from a Noora.
Pakpak
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Runs
- 9,232
Because they know they won't have any reasonable answer to Nawaz's corruption then saying ''oh I don't support PMLN'' is a very convenient wall to hide behind is my guess.
Last edited:
Pakpak
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Runs
- 9,232
Yesterday he was saying that PMLN had big numbers in jalsa but the entire 'establishment' had 'bought the media' and hence weren't showing that.
WebGuru
Senior ODI Player
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Runs
- 21,339
- Post of the Week
- 3
True and their blind followers don't understand a simple fact that jamhuryat is liay khatre main he because accountability is the base of any democracy.
Slog
Senior Test Player
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
- Runs
- 28,984
- Post of the Week
- 1
Dude those judges were actually very biased and only had eyes for PPP.
They owed PML-N for their restoration and would everyday make life a living hell for PPP. The current SC is fairly impartial and not just focussed on one target
Pakpak
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Runs
- 9,232
Exactly, PMLN appointed the CJ's son Arsalan in some big post after the cases against PPP. But it was fine then, no problems, no establishment conspiracies.
It was also fine when he was convicted in the 1990s for taking ISI money to remove Benazir. I mean there is so much nonsense you don't know where to start.
Last edited by a moderator:
WebGuru
Senior ODI Player
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Runs
- 21,339
- Post of the Week
- 3
They also got lot of favors from Justice Malik Qayyum (remember the leaked call?). Qayyum's brother Malik Pervez was gifted a MNA seat from PMLN back thn and these days he is serving as the Minister for Commerce and Textile.
These Nooras do know how to reward the person and their families who helped them in past.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hitman
Senior T20I Player
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Runs
- 17,372
I believe he has been victimized.
Leo23
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2017
- Runs
- 1,067
obviously not but justice should served to all and not just the head
and lol at pakpak putting me on ignore list and calling me illeterate just because i cannot write very good english
Leo23
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2017
- Runs
- 1,067
i don't believe in supporting any political party i don't even live in pakistan but pti and ik are the best option at the moment and deserve the chance in spite of all their faults
my family are sharif supporters
The elections were rigged so how can he say "you voted for me"? Even then it has been proved that he is an incredibly corrupt man unable to justify his wealth and earnings. The court had every right to dismiss him like they did. I won't be happy until he and Zardari are behind bars. He is a beaten and broken man that can be seen in his body language and the pathetic turn out for his protest where he expected hundred's of millions to support him
IK has clean bowled him!
IK has clean bowled him!This is the problem right, not sure if you followed politics in the past but this is exactly what the argument of Zardari supporters was during PPP government. yes we know Zardari is corrupt but why only Zardari, isn't Nawaz Sharif corrupt as well? Jarnailon ka ehtasaab kyun nahi hota??
Now Sharif supporters are saying, sirf Sharif hi kyun?? Baqi sab ka kon karega?
So the question is, WHO will hold jarnails and judges and others accountable?? ONLY possible option is a functioning institution like NAB that will investigate cases regardless if it's politician or fauji or judge ..... Now Mr Nawaz Sharif has appointed a Retired Major Qamar Zaman Chauhdry as NAB head who is known corrupt.
Who can Nawaz blame for not taking action against other when he appoints a corrupt person to save himself and that too a retired Major???
Now if people consider Nawaz Sharif champion of democracy or anti establishment commander, read the following tweet from a liberal, democratic and PPP supporter who opposes PTI:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="ur" dir="rtl">۸۰ کے بعد جتنے بھی وزیرِ اعظم اپنا وقت پورے کرنے سے پہلے گھر گئے اُن سب میں نواز شریف فوج اور عدلیہ کے ساتھ سازش میں شامل تھا ۲۰۱۲ گیلانی تک</p>— Asad Munir (@asadmunir38) <a href="https://twitter.com/asadmunir38/status/895652994431275009">August 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
For those who can't read Urdu, he is basically saying that Nawaz Sharif who comaplains about PMs not being able to complete their full terms of 5 years. Since 1980 Nawaz Sharif has been part of conspiracy in removing EVERY PM till 2012 which was just before he got elected as PM.
Judiciary today is lot more independent and strong and case against Sharif is so strong that any unbiased person can't blame the judges and this wasn't an isolated case where Sharif was specifically targeted, it was international leak of documents that impacted many people around the world.
No judiciary or dictator has ever been able to investigate Sharif's corruption even though he was known corrupt for 3 decades. If even he plays the victim card then no one in Pakistan should be penalised for corruption.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="ur" dir="rtl">۸۰ کے بعد جتنے بھی وزیرِ اعظم اپنا وقت پورے کرنے سے پہلے گھر گئے اُن سب میں نواز شریف فوج اور عدلیہ کے ساتھ سازش میں شامل تھا ۲۰۱۲ گیلانی تک</p>— Asad Munir (@asadmunir38) <a href="https://twitter.com/asadmunir38/status/895652994431275009">August 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
For those who can't read Urdu, he is basically saying that Nawaz Sharif who comaplains about PMs not being able to complete their full terms of 5 years. Since 1980 Nawaz Sharif has been part of conspiracy in removing EVERY PM till 2012 which was just before he got elected as PM.
Judiciary today is lot more independent and strong and case against Sharif is so strong that any unbiased person can't blame the judges and this wasn't an isolated case where Sharif was specifically targeted, it was international leak of documents that impacted many people around the world.
No judiciary or dictator has ever been able to investigate Sharif's corruption even though he was known corrupt for 3 decades. If even he plays the victim card then no one in Pakistan should be penalised for corruption.
IMMY69
Senior T20I Player
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2005
- Runs
- 19,385
It's all fine as long as he "gifts" a few things to the people like 3G ��
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Foreign Office said Tuesday the judiciary in Pakistan is independent and the courts are functioning in line with the Constitution and laws of the country.
The US State Department has portrayed the judiciary of Pakistan in an extremely negative manner and stated that theoretically, the country’s judicial system operates independently of the executive branch but the reality is quite different, The News had reported.
In its latest report, 2021 Investment Climate Statements: Pakistan, the State Department said: “Pakistan’s judiciary is influenced by the government and other stakeholders. The lower judiciary is influenced by the executive branch and is seen as lacking competence and fairness. It currently faces a significant backlog of unresolved cases.”
The allegations to the contrary are firmly denied as factually incorrect and misleading, Foreign Office Spokesperson Zahid Hafeez Chaudhri said in a statement, responding to media queries.
The spokesperson said the country takes strong exception to the gratuitous and unwarranted comments made in the report on Pakistan's judicial system, as he reacted to the "Investment Climate Statements for 2021" released by the US Department of State.
"The allegations to the contrary are firmly denied as factually incorrect and misleading," the spokesperson said.
As a vibrant democracy, the Pakistani government firmly believes in the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the state, the spokesperson said.
"There is no question of any coercion or pressure on Pakistan’s judiciary," he said.
The baseless assertions made in the report are contradicted by innumerable decisions by Pakistani courts at all levels that meet the highest standards of judicial independence, Chaudhri said.
"While the statement acknowledges the progress made and reforms undertaken by Pakistan in improving its business and investment climate, despite extremely difficult circumstances due to the pandemic, it speculates on alleged shortcomings in Pakistan’s regulatory framework and bases its conclusions on unverifiable sources," the spokesperson said.
Mutually beneficial cooperation in the areas of the economy, trade, and investment with the international community, including the US, is one of the key priorities of the Pakistan government, he noted.
"We will continue to take steps to optimally realise Pakistan’s geo-economic potential," Chaudhri added.
GEO
The US State Department has portrayed the judiciary of Pakistan in an extremely negative manner and stated that theoretically, the country’s judicial system operates independently of the executive branch but the reality is quite different, The News had reported.
In its latest report, 2021 Investment Climate Statements: Pakistan, the State Department said: “Pakistan’s judiciary is influenced by the government and other stakeholders. The lower judiciary is influenced by the executive branch and is seen as lacking competence and fairness. It currently faces a significant backlog of unresolved cases.”
The allegations to the contrary are firmly denied as factually incorrect and misleading, Foreign Office Spokesperson Zahid Hafeez Chaudhri said in a statement, responding to media queries.
The spokesperson said the country takes strong exception to the gratuitous and unwarranted comments made in the report on Pakistan's judicial system, as he reacted to the "Investment Climate Statements for 2021" released by the US Department of State.
"The allegations to the contrary are firmly denied as factually incorrect and misleading," the spokesperson said.
As a vibrant democracy, the Pakistani government firmly believes in the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the state, the spokesperson said.
"There is no question of any coercion or pressure on Pakistan’s judiciary," he said.
The baseless assertions made in the report are contradicted by innumerable decisions by Pakistani courts at all levels that meet the highest standards of judicial independence, Chaudhri said.
"While the statement acknowledges the progress made and reforms undertaken by Pakistan in improving its business and investment climate, despite extremely difficult circumstances due to the pandemic, it speculates on alleged shortcomings in Pakistan’s regulatory framework and bases its conclusions on unverifiable sources," the spokesperson said.
Mutually beneficial cooperation in the areas of the economy, trade, and investment with the international community, including the US, is one of the key priorities of the Pakistan government, he noted.
"We will continue to take steps to optimally realise Pakistan’s geo-economic potential," Chaudhri added.
GEO
IAJ
T20I Star
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Runs
- 32,966
- Post of the Week
- 1
- Nawaz Shareef holds meeting which an Afghani who has openly insulted Pakistan.
- One of their leaders in AJK threatens with asking help from India.
- Maryam Nawaz are trying to mislead Pakistanis with her wrong information on Twitter.
And this party dreams of rulling Pakistan again. This party is directly dangerous for Pakistan’s security and safety.
- One of their leaders in AJK threatens with asking help from India.
- Maryam Nawaz are trying to mislead Pakistanis with her wrong information on Twitter.
And this party dreams of rulling Pakistan again. This party is directly dangerous for Pakistan’s security and safety.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Supreme Court Judge Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel has taken strong exception to Prime Minister Imran Khan's statement in which he alleged that Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) leader Nawaz Sharif is trying to woo judges against the PTI-led government.
Justice Alam noted that observations and questions by the judges during the hearing of the presidential reference have an impact outside the court. He also referred to the premier's statement. However, Attorney General for Pakistan Khalid Jawed Khan said that they should not be influenced by happenings outside the court.
Another member of the bench, Judge Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, wondered as to whether the prime minister should restrain from giving such statements.
The justice said that it seems the premier has no confidence in the highest judiciary of the country and MNAs have no confidence in the premier.
However, Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial said that they are not influenced from statements given by political leaders.
At the onset of the hearing, Advocate General Sindh Salman Talibuddin stated that the Islamabad police has not incorporated terrorism charges in the FIR registered against PTI workers who attacked Sindh House. Upon this, CJP Bandial asked him to approach an appropriate forum on this issue.
Later, the CJP told Advocate General Islamabad that the police should act in accordance with law and submit a report on Tuesday.
During the hearing, Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan stated that there is no positive meaning of defection in the dictionary. He termed defection as a dubious act that shows opportunism and betrayal.
Justice Ahsan said that if lawmakers defect on account of incentives, then there might be consequences of Article (62)(1)(f) of the Constitution.
He further said that if a lawmaker defects, then he breaks trust.and the parliamentary party could decide on an in-house change
Justice Mandokhail wondered what is the need for a presidential reference on the matter. "In case of defection, let the ECP decide," he said. Justice Alam also asked the AGP as to the basis of lifetime disqualification for defected lawmakers.
Justice Bandial stated that it is an important case as political parties are important for the parliamentary system. Everyone accepts parliamentary democracy and it is a basic feature of the Constitution he added. The hearing was then adjourned.
The AGP will continue his arguments tomorrow.
Justice Alam noted that observations and questions by the judges during the hearing of the presidential reference have an impact outside the court. He also referred to the premier's statement. However, Attorney General for Pakistan Khalid Jawed Khan said that they should not be influenced by happenings outside the court.
Another member of the bench, Judge Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, wondered as to whether the prime minister should restrain from giving such statements.
The justice said that it seems the premier has no confidence in the highest judiciary of the country and MNAs have no confidence in the premier.
However, Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial said that they are not influenced from statements given by political leaders.
At the onset of the hearing, Advocate General Sindh Salman Talibuddin stated that the Islamabad police has not incorporated terrorism charges in the FIR registered against PTI workers who attacked Sindh House. Upon this, CJP Bandial asked him to approach an appropriate forum on this issue.
Later, the CJP told Advocate General Islamabad that the police should act in accordance with law and submit a report on Tuesday.
During the hearing, Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan stated that there is no positive meaning of defection in the dictionary. He termed defection as a dubious act that shows opportunism and betrayal.
Justice Ahsan said that if lawmakers defect on account of incentives, then there might be consequences of Article (62)(1)(f) of the Constitution.
He further said that if a lawmaker defects, then he breaks trust.and the parliamentary party could decide on an in-house change
Justice Mandokhail wondered what is the need for a presidential reference on the matter. "In case of defection, let the ECP decide," he said. Justice Alam also asked the AGP as to the basis of lifetime disqualification for defected lawmakers.
Justice Bandial stated that it is an important case as political parties are important for the parliamentary system. Everyone accepts parliamentary democracy and it is a basic feature of the Constitution he added. The hearing was then adjourned.
The AGP will continue his arguments tomorrow.
silentkiller187
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Runs
- 5,483
PM Imran issues clarification to SC on remarks about Nawaz wooing judiciary
Prime Minister Imran Khan on Tuesday attempted to clarify his remarks regarding PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif wooing the judiciary, stating that they were made in the context of the 1997 attack on the apex court.
The premier's response came during the hearing of a presidential reference seeking interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution, which is currently under way.
During yesterday's hearing, the apex court had taken exception to the comments made by the premier during a public meeting in Punjab's Kamalia city on Saturday where he had said that if Nawaz returned to the country, he would divide the judiciary, which, in fact, he had started doing, adding that the signs were visible.
Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel had regretted that the prime minister in his speech had alleged that attempts were being made to woo judges while Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel had wondered if the premier could restrain himself from “irresponsible” utterances.
During the hearing today, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Jawed Khan presented the premier's response. "The premier's speech in Kamalia was brought up in court. I want to put forward the prime minister's statement [in this regard] in front of you today."
According to the AGP, PM Imran's comments were made in the context of the 1997 incident. On Nov 28, 1997, the SC was stormed while the court was in session with the chief justice and other judges hearing a case against Nawaz, the prime minister at the time.
The attorney general added that the prime minister had expressed his full confidence and trust in the judiciary.
The reference
The reference, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, presents two interpretations of Article 63-A and requests the court to advise which of them should be followed.
According to the first interpretation, "khiyanat (dishonesty) by way of defections warrants no pre-emptive action save de-seating the member as per the prescribed procedure with no further restriction or curbs from seeking election afresh."
While the second interpretation "visualises this provision as prophylactic, enshrining the constitutional goal of purifying the democratic process, inter alia, by rooting out the mischief of defection by creating deterrence, inter alia, by neutralising the effects of vitiated vote followed by lifelong disqualification for the member found involved in such constitutionally prohibited and morally reprehensible conduct."
The development comes days after several PTI lawmakers, who had been 'in hiding' at the Sindh House in Islamabad, revealed themselves — proving that the opposition's claims of having "won over" members of the ruling coalition were indeed true.
Prime Minister Imran Khan and some cabinet ministers had earlier accused the opposition of indulging in horse-trading ahead of the crucial vote on the no-confidence resolution, disclosing that the capital's Sindh House had become a centre for buying and purchasing members.
But while government members continued to claim that these dissidents had "sold their souls for money", a number of TV channels that sent their teams into Sindh House to verify the claims were faced with nearly a dozen PTI members, who claimed that they had developed differences with the Imran Khan-led government and were going to vote in "accordance with their conscience".
Subsequently, the government had decided to file a presidential reference for the interpretation of Article 63-A with Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry saying the top court would be asked about the "legal status of the vote of party members when they are clearly involved in horse-trading and change their loyalties in exchange for money".
The presidential reference was filed under Article 186 which is related to the advisory jurisdiction of the SC.
In the reference, President Dr Arif Alvi also asked the apex court whether a member who "engages in constitutionally prohibited and morally reprehensible act of defection" could claim the right to have his vote counted and given equal weightage or if there was a constitutional restriction to exclude such "tainted" votes.
He also asked the court to elaborate whether a parliamentarian, who had been declared to have committed defection, would be disqualified for life.
"What other measures and steps can be undertaken within the existing constitutional and legal framework to curb, deter and eradicate the cancerous practice of defection, floor crossing and vote-buying?" the reference further asks.
"As happened on many occasions in past, the stage is yet again set for switching of political loyalties for all sorts of illegal and mala fide considerations including vote-buying which by its very nature rarely leave admissible or traceable evidence," the reference states.
It adds that some of the "presently defecting [MNAs] have even publicly admitted to defection in interviews to the media with evident pride and further commitment to stay engaged in this immoral trade".
It cautions that unless horse-trading is eliminated, "a truly democratic polity shall forever remain an unfilled distant dream and ambition".
"Owing to the weak interpretation of Article 63-A entailing no prolonged disqualification, such members first enrich themselves and then come back to remain available to the highest bidder in the next round perpetuating this cancer."
Article 63-A
According to Article 63-A of the Constitution, a parliamentarian can be disqualified on grounds of defection if he "votes or abstains from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by the parliamentary party to which he belongs, in relation to election of the prime minister or chief minister; or a vote of confidence or a vote of no-confidence; or a money bill or a Constitution (amendment) bill".
The article says that the party head has to declare in writing that the MNA concerned has defected but before making the declaration, the party head will "provide such member with an opportunity to show cause as to why such declaration may not be made against him".
After giving the member a chance to explain their reasons, the party head will forward the declaration to the speaker, who will forward it to the chief election commissioner (CEC). The CEC will then have 30 days to confirm the declaration. If confirmed by the CEC, the member "shall cease to be a member of the House and his seat shall become vacant".
The government has already indicated that it will use Article 63-A to "crush" the no-confidence motion against PM Imran.
Earlier, Adviser to Prime Minister on Parliamentary Affairs Dr Babar Awan had said that the intent of Article 63-A of the Constitution was to not allow lawmakers, who got the public's votes and were elected in the name of the party leadership, to cross floor. "We will crush the no-confidence motion through the Constitution and the law," he had claimed.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1682406/p...to-sc-on-remarks-about-nawaz-wooing-judiciary
Prime Minister Imran Khan on Tuesday attempted to clarify his remarks regarding PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif wooing the judiciary, stating that they were made in the context of the 1997 attack on the apex court.
The premier's response came during the hearing of a presidential reference seeking interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution, which is currently under way.
During yesterday's hearing, the apex court had taken exception to the comments made by the premier during a public meeting in Punjab's Kamalia city on Saturday where he had said that if Nawaz returned to the country, he would divide the judiciary, which, in fact, he had started doing, adding that the signs were visible.
Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel had regretted that the prime minister in his speech had alleged that attempts were being made to woo judges while Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel had wondered if the premier could restrain himself from “irresponsible” utterances.
During the hearing today, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Jawed Khan presented the premier's response. "The premier's speech in Kamalia was brought up in court. I want to put forward the prime minister's statement [in this regard] in front of you today."
According to the AGP, PM Imran's comments were made in the context of the 1997 incident. On Nov 28, 1997, the SC was stormed while the court was in session with the chief justice and other judges hearing a case against Nawaz, the prime minister at the time.
The attorney general added that the prime minister had expressed his full confidence and trust in the judiciary.
The reference
The reference, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, presents two interpretations of Article 63-A and requests the court to advise which of them should be followed.
According to the first interpretation, "khiyanat (dishonesty) by way of defections warrants no pre-emptive action save de-seating the member as per the prescribed procedure with no further restriction or curbs from seeking election afresh."
While the second interpretation "visualises this provision as prophylactic, enshrining the constitutional goal of purifying the democratic process, inter alia, by rooting out the mischief of defection by creating deterrence, inter alia, by neutralising the effects of vitiated vote followed by lifelong disqualification for the member found involved in such constitutionally prohibited and morally reprehensible conduct."
The development comes days after several PTI lawmakers, who had been 'in hiding' at the Sindh House in Islamabad, revealed themselves — proving that the opposition's claims of having "won over" members of the ruling coalition were indeed true.
Prime Minister Imran Khan and some cabinet ministers had earlier accused the opposition of indulging in horse-trading ahead of the crucial vote on the no-confidence resolution, disclosing that the capital's Sindh House had become a centre for buying and purchasing members.
But while government members continued to claim that these dissidents had "sold their souls for money", a number of TV channels that sent their teams into Sindh House to verify the claims were faced with nearly a dozen PTI members, who claimed that they had developed differences with the Imran Khan-led government and were going to vote in "accordance with their conscience".
Subsequently, the government had decided to file a presidential reference for the interpretation of Article 63-A with Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry saying the top court would be asked about the "legal status of the vote of party members when they are clearly involved in horse-trading and change their loyalties in exchange for money".
The presidential reference was filed under Article 186 which is related to the advisory jurisdiction of the SC.
In the reference, President Dr Arif Alvi also asked the apex court whether a member who "engages in constitutionally prohibited and morally reprehensible act of defection" could claim the right to have his vote counted and given equal weightage or if there was a constitutional restriction to exclude such "tainted" votes.
He also asked the court to elaborate whether a parliamentarian, who had been declared to have committed defection, would be disqualified for life.
"What other measures and steps can be undertaken within the existing constitutional and legal framework to curb, deter and eradicate the cancerous practice of defection, floor crossing and vote-buying?" the reference further asks.
"As happened on many occasions in past, the stage is yet again set for switching of political loyalties for all sorts of illegal and mala fide considerations including vote-buying which by its very nature rarely leave admissible or traceable evidence," the reference states.
It adds that some of the "presently defecting [MNAs] have even publicly admitted to defection in interviews to the media with evident pride and further commitment to stay engaged in this immoral trade".
It cautions that unless horse-trading is eliminated, "a truly democratic polity shall forever remain an unfilled distant dream and ambition".
"Owing to the weak interpretation of Article 63-A entailing no prolonged disqualification, such members first enrich themselves and then come back to remain available to the highest bidder in the next round perpetuating this cancer."
Article 63-A
According to Article 63-A of the Constitution, a parliamentarian can be disqualified on grounds of defection if he "votes or abstains from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by the parliamentary party to which he belongs, in relation to election of the prime minister or chief minister; or a vote of confidence or a vote of no-confidence; or a money bill or a Constitution (amendment) bill".
The article says that the party head has to declare in writing that the MNA concerned has defected but before making the declaration, the party head will "provide such member with an opportunity to show cause as to why such declaration may not be made against him".
After giving the member a chance to explain their reasons, the party head will forward the declaration to the speaker, who will forward it to the chief election commissioner (CEC). The CEC will then have 30 days to confirm the declaration. If confirmed by the CEC, the member "shall cease to be a member of the House and his seat shall become vacant".
The government has already indicated that it will use Article 63-A to "crush" the no-confidence motion against PM Imran.
Earlier, Adviser to Prime Minister on Parliamentary Affairs Dr Babar Awan had said that the intent of Article 63-A of the Constitution was to not allow lawmakers, who got the public's votes and were elected in the name of the party leadership, to cross floor. "We will crush the no-confidence motion through the Constitution and the law," he had claimed.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1682406/p...to-sc-on-remarks-about-nawaz-wooing-judiciary
Similar threads
