106
IN disqualifying a sitting, democratically elected prime minister, the Supreme Court has taken an extraordinary — and unfortunate — step.
This whole story could have played out very differently, in ways much less disruptive to the nascent democracy this country is trying to build, if the SC had steered clear of a course of action that has now brought the judiciary, parliament and the executive in direct confrontation with each other. At a number of junctures the court could have avoided pursuing the contempt of court case as doggedly as it did, especially considering that the larger issue — corruption — was a matter involving the president, not the prime minister. Legally there might have been a case against the prime minister, but it was best for the supreme judiciary not to have waded so deep into such obviously political waters. Even at a later stage, it could have let the speaker’s ruling — which has the backing of a parliamentary resolution — stand. If that was not possible, it could have declared her ruling unacceptable and referred the matter to the Election Commission rather than simply asking that body to issue a denotification. Even if the outcome had ultimately been the same, at least the court would not have taken on the role of directly disqualifying an elected prime minister. By doing so, it has both disrupted an existing democratic set-up and set a worrying precedent for the future.
But the damage has been done. And the PPP has an important choice to make. The party should now take the high moral ground and focus on the system rather than the individual. There are disruptive options: refusing to accept the order, for example, or delaying the matter by using the constitution to argue that the president can ask the prime minister to continue in office until a new one is appointed. For the sake of preserving the system, if the party has reservations against the judgment it should express these, perhaps even through a strongly worded parliamentary resolution, have Mr Yousuf Raza Gilani step aside and parliament elect a new prime minister as soon as possible.
Indications are that the ruling coalition has already embarked on this course. But it is still deeply unfortunate that matters have come to this stage; completing the five-year tenure of both an elected government and its chief executive would have been a much-needed win for Pakistan. What is critical now is that elections are held, whether early or on time and as free and fair as possible, so that the final judgment can be left to the people’s court.
Read more
On DawnNews
Comments (106) Closed
Jun 20, 2012 04:13pm
The court punished PM for violating the constitution. The constitution made it compulsory for the executive to follow court orders.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:11pm
The SC restrained from making harsh decisions for the sake of democracy. It was time when the executive crossed the limit. Executive made it clear that it wasn't going to follow court's orders. So, the SC had no other option.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:07pm
The government had it coming to them. There was no other way. SC already gave the government enough time to obey.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 09:16pm
I agree. It does seem weird to me too that an unelected court fires an elected PM and the elected parliament couldn't say anything. I am not familiar with SC's power under the constitution but it does seem odd that court should have the power in the first place to order the government to write a letter. Shouldn’t the executive have the power to decide what political policy to follow as long as that policy is constitutional. I think the editorial makes the right point.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 12:24pm
With respect, I could not see any merit in Mr Gilani’s defence. Mr Gilani by not appealing the 7 bench’s decision; accepted that he was a convict. By not challenging the 7 bench decision he himself closed his legal/constitutional defence, if any – and he himself caused a situation where highly persuasive/plausible argument from the speaker was limbless. That had to fail. SC had to simply fill in the blanks since “Mr Gilani has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction”. Our consciousness needs to mature and will mature in due course of time to recognise that neither Parliament nor Executive or the Judiciary are supreme – it is the Constitution and the Constitutional supremacy that should prevail under any governance – I consider the SC verdict advances that consciousness.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 03:50pm
But that would have been a democratic move-not political and this is merely a political government. Our politicians consider themselves kings once they are elected. They will never leave if they are not thrown out.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:05pm
The law is supreme. Everyone has to obey it. The PM is no exception. He had to follow court orders, which he didn't and got the right punishment for that. Moreover, he wasn't convicted on charges on incompetency-he violated the law and deserved the punishment.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 11:09am
Well the Apex Court of Pakistan has issued the directive that as a convicted person Mr Yusuf Raza Guilani cannot be allowed to be either member of Pakistan's national Assembly or PPP'sPM any longer.he had been sacked without much ado, now. Most certainly it is sort of confrontation between national Assembly and the Apex court.The matter should have been sorted out for keeping the Government discharging its basic duties of holding Administration and law&order. President Zardari would be put to real trust,now. D. Goel
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 09:35pm
No doubt that its another coup by our unelected, elitist Judiary using the PM' so-called contempt as a pretext to overthrow an elected,democratic govt of Pakistan. Similar to what SC has done before to subvert democracy and rule of law, liike the dismissal of Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan;s NA, or legalizing PM Kh Nazimuddin's dismissal or judicial murder of PM ZA Bhutto. For the last year or so every Order of CJ has been in violation of the Constitution and Pak laws. This SC has become a farce and joke in knowing and applying the law. The whole world is condemning this illegal act.On the other hand this CJ justified the overthrow of the Constitution and rule of law by dictator Musharraf. The recent actions of CJ has shown that the judiciary is worse than Army dictators. History will judge this decision by CJ as a black letter for democracy and freedom.. This is also perhaps the most corrupt and ambitious judiciary in Pak history.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 10:38am
Weird stuff -- where in the world an elected prime minister is fired by an appointed judge for the contempt of an UNELECTED court. What happened to the contempt of an ELECTED parliament?
If not an army coup -- a judicial coup?
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:04pm
Where in world a country is run by a convicted PM ?? If PM was not on the fault WHY DID HE DECIDE NOT TO APPEAL ????????
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 09:22pm
.....a judicial coup? Just like the one in 2000 US presidential election!
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 05:49pm
good assessment. sc is on wrong side.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 05:26pm
Biggest terrorist in Pakistan is your beloved Chief Justice. He is a conspirator. Gilani is best PM so far. He has shown the corrupt judges their place, that is CONTMPT.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:51pm
The prime focus of SC is to maintain or uphold justice and that is what they did. Thousand wrong precedences have been established by ruling parities politicians, this rot can only be cleaned by strictly adhering to provide justice to the people of Pakistan by courts. General or Politician! nobody is above the law.
Recommend
0
Jun 21, 2012 11:06am
After reading some of the comments I have come to conclusion that all the opinions are divided but one fact is there that the judgement has been accepted by the president who is ruling the show. The judges were right to take this action when most of the government ministers were talking foul against the judiciary.
Recommend
0
Jun 21, 2012 11:57am
the judiciary that convicted Gilani could have sue moto, constituted a full bench and deliberated the cognizance and conviction.
a duly elected PM of a country petitioning and appealing to judiciary for lenience does not add respect to him or the parliamentary democracy. he, if pardoned, will be less effective in discharging his responsibilities.
he did the best thing and not appealed!
Recommend
0
Jun 22, 2012 11:10am
The decision doesnt contain any norms or ethics of law, so from where the Supremacy will come ?? With floods during summers !!
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 01:22pm
So what sort of precedent would it have set to let a convicted and corrupt person continue to flagrantly defy supreme court judgements and continue to serve as PM..
What sort of "democracy" allows a chief executive of a country to continuously mock and defy the judgements of the supreme court?
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 01:24pm
no accountability for judge
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 02:46pm
This probably could happen only in Pakistan.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 10:00am
Your take on the role of the Judiciary is confused and pleading for poor judiciary.
The SC must not play politics which unwittingly seem to be suggesting.
Corruption of politicians is a major issue: Should the SC remain silent on the issue?
Democratically elected PrimeMinister has a major question mark! Did you know ,when voting,as to who the Prime Minister would be after the election?
Some corrupt individuals with some help from a Party leader, who choose them in the first place, selected him as the President. It was a question of rubbing each others back.
Democratically elected, Ohm, well , sort of, but not really as the standards of decency go in the world. Now you will not want to live by the national code i.e. the Constitution, it follows your argument. A sort of the American SC decision in 1802, pleasing both the fighting factions!
Milton
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:00pm
A very balanced editorial
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 03:59pm
The people of Pakistan did not vote for the PM to break the records of bad governance ,corruption, and contempt of court ! this judgement was the last resort .
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 10:10am
Right on the dot!! Sanity should have prevailed and government, no matter how incompetent, shoud have been allowed to complete its tenure. Nobody asks any other institution or their representatives to give up no matter how much they goof up.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 10:19am
I think The Dawn is only News Paper in Pakistan which stands for a democratic Pakistan and is playing her due role for moderate Pakistan despite having faced resistance from conservates and right wing groups. What Gilani govt. bestowed Pakistan was the respect to others may they be institutions or political parties. He would be remembered in history as being the only PM who was sacked not by the Parliament but an fortunate judiacial coup only because he stood for the Suprimacy of the constitution not the court
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 02:41pm
Not really. 30 second sentence....you must be joking right!
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 02:45pm
This is indeed a political judgement. The Swiss courts themselves had closed the case when Zardari became president. The CJ should had waited till he gave up his office. A very sad interpretation from you my friend.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 08:16pm
Moreover, in at least one of its editorials Dawn urged Prime Minister Gilani to write the letter to Swiss authorities as Supreme Court had asked him to do. Dawn, I remember, lamented the stubbornness of the PM and PPP in this regard.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 08:06pm
"Nobody is above the law" is the clear message sent out by the verdict of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissing Yousuf Raza Gilani from the post of prime minister. The judgement has come at a time when the rule of law in Pakistan was at stake after the refusal by Gilani to obey the order of the highest court of country. And later he chose not to resign after being convicted for contempt of court. How could a convict be the head of a government in any civilized society? It is a landmark judgement which has restored the dignity of the courts and respect for the rule of the law.
Your have argued that the judgement may derail democratic process in Pakistan. A democracy does not mean dictatorship of the ruling class simply because they have got the mandate to rule. The Constitution and the laws as interpreted by court constitute the foundation of a nation whithout which the whole edifice will fall to the ground. Hiding behing democracy for all kinds of misdeeds is definitely not in the interest of any nation. People of Pakistan now can hope to see dawn of a new era based on rule of law and respect for the courts.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 07:46pm
After creating such a huge constitutional mess and then getting entangled in a corruption case himself, CJ does not deserve his job any more so he should resign.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 09:04pm
what a weak editorial from a strong Newspaper like DAWN. Do you really think Pakistanis wanted Gilani to stay in power further to degrade this corrupt democracy further more. The country is at the brink of civil war due to this in-efficient,corrupt and weak govt. and the editorial says let such democratic course should have completed its full term. For what?
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 11:08am
i respect and admire Gilani!
he maintained that no criminal proceeding can be taken against the constitutionally elected president. he maintained it and made no apology. he was not defending himself from corruption. he acted on the procedure dictated by constitution. if it were an error, he needs to be sacrificed.
sending letter to Swiss or the bank authorities is part of the criminal proceedings.
he fell for no fault of his.
there are few principled men of his caliber in the subcontinent.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 10:32am
Given the situation in the country, what ever the editorial line, the Apex Court 's decision was the only possible and just outcome.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 03:55pm
In a fully democratic state, the PM would have resigned long ago. Anyhow, as we are on the way to realize the dream of a fully democratic state, it was a necessary move by SC.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 11:23am
Good thoughts - only if you could give the same advice to CJ.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 10:52am
A good assessment of currant unfortunate situation. Democracy need a chance in Pakistan.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 05:54pm
It is not the rule of law that is in question here; it is the "law" of the rule. The "law" of the rule appears to be varying across spectra here. The first "law" of the rule is the ruling class in the form of the parliament represented by the prime minister. The second "law" of the rule is the judiciary which has been politicizing itself taking suo moto action against anything and everthing, all of which has cast serious doubts on its credibility. The third "law" of the rule is the president who has been using the first law as means of shielding himself from the second. The fourth "law" of the rule is the military whose influece is not what it used to be but it still enjoys an unparallelled clout affairs. The fifth "law" of the rule is the media which has been pitching the above four against one another. Lastly, the sixth "law" of the rule are the Mullahs who continue to impose their bogus and redundant agenda on the masses without any positive results whatsoever for the country. These six "laws" reign supreme in Pakistan and they dicatate our lives.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 03:52pm
CJ did what was right. The law had had enough. Government made enough fun of it.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 11:28am
Rule of law? don't you think the 30ish seconds conviction was political? which law specifies this? where is the rule of law when it comes to Sharif brothers?
History repeats itself - Pakistani courts never gave justice to PPP - From Bhutto to Gilani.
Dawn is the voice of moderates - sane thoughts sane writing. sane editorial. Had we a couple of Urdu newspapers like Dawn the extremist mindset would not have flourished as it is now.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 03:53pm
Because the government can't present enought evidence against them.
Recommend
0
Jun 22, 2012 11:06am
The decision may be right but the process followed and the way it was decided was wrong, illegal, illegitimate and against the basic norms and procedures of the law and justice system...
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 02:48pm
And you my friend, have to understand that there is no other way to progress in the 21st century other than democracy. Or do you want Pakistan to become like the Arab countries that exist only because they have oil but otherwise are useless??
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 10:19am
i completely agree with the arguments raised in the editorial. Now the nation is waiting what would be the next step by the honourable chief justice for rooting out corruption from the country.
Zafar Iqbal
Sharjah
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 12:02pm
Don't blame the SC for this fiasco. If the PM had written the latter as he was told then this situation would not have risen. Rule of law cannot be compromised just this prime minister so that he could complete his full tanner. Completely disagree with the editorial.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 11:52am
Agree with Gulap.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 11:43am
Judiciary has ensured that another coup by another name has made mockery of parliament and democracy. No where on earth, a court debars a PM on a contempt of themselves. Totally unnecessary judgement derailing a poor power defit bankrupt country.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:21pm
He didn't have the right to decide whether president enjoyed immunity or not. The interpretation of the constitution is court's job. Gilani only had to obey what court ordered.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 02:39pm
Read I newspaper part of The Independent Newspaper london quote " It was a coup by other means. In the past , Pakistan's democratic hopes were often thwarted by generals taking power for themselves , or shunting government aside by subtler means. Now its the turn of another unelected institution try the same" clearly supreme court of pakistan have position the decision on political basis .
Faisal Ansari @Ansarifaisee76 twitter)
Manchester
uk
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 02:39pm
No it is not. This is a political decision.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 02:49pm
spot on!
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 02:50pm
I can see that you are not a lawyer.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 02:54pm
The SC has assumed the mantle of the Executive and the Legislature as well, trying to micromanage every single issue in the country. Institutions are not build or based on personal egos or personal feuds and a Prime Minister's ouster by the Supreme Court has set a very dangerous precedence. The Court's stubbornness on writing the letter was egoistic and illogical, knowing the fact that the person accused of graft had official immunity and the letter would have been without force and rather insulting of one's own institutions in foreign countries. In the chequered constitutional history of Pakistan, from Maulvi Tamizuddin Case to Zulfiqar Bhutto's hanging to Gillani's ouster, the highest court has consistently erred. DAWN has rightly called it an unfortunate day; I would have called it a 'Judicial Coup!'
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 02:53pm
Will this verdict stamp out corruption in any way? No sir! "Secondly, one can see with nacked eyes the way the 'majority' formed in the Parliament. International norms indicate that the Head of the Government and PM and his cabinet has no MORAL ground to rule the country. They were treating the SC rulings as a 'clerical action'."-You must be joking. Where did you come up with this bit?
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:27pm
Fully agree. The decision will ensure the supremacy of law
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:25pm
That is history. And the present SC had nothing to do with that. Ask those judges.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:39pm
If they had shown democratic attitude, the parliament would have removed gilani itself.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 02:56am
this country is heading no where!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOD BLESS OUR CHILDRENS FUTURE.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:37pm
Parliament should have stood by the law and said good bye to gilani itself. Parliament exercised "undemocratic" behavior by not doing so
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:35pm
This is not a democratic system. I agree that they no longer had right to rule. This is merely a democratically elected political system.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 03:07am
amen to that.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:30pm
It will strengthen democracy. It may undermine our dirty politicians---BUT THEY ARE NOT DEMOCRACY
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 03:19am
People of Pakistan must understand that their right to send an unpopular government home through vote has been usurped by this judgment.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:28pm
This is not democracy-this is merely a political system
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:29pm
Agree with the editorial.
I would add that whoever gets selected as the next PM is going to get the same order to send the letter to the Swiss and they won't be allowed the luxury of arguing whether it's constitutional. In the end neither Gilani, SC, or Pakistan come off very well as a result of this dispute. Pakistan is in desperate need of more leadership and less ego driven decision makers.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:06am
Extremely unfortunate development! The judiciary has missed the forest for the trees! The power of the parliament has been completely compromised to go after one individual! In a country so full of financial irregularities, an incident in the past has been given precedence over the future of parliamentary democracy! The PPP workers should remain calm under these seemingly harsh provocations! God save democracy in Pakistan!
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:12am
The decision indeed is very unfortunate! How can supreme court justifies disqualifying the elected Prime Minister while providing three military dictators legitimacy to continue under the doctrine of necessity? Whose side the court is on the democracy or the dictatorship?
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:24pm
It is the need of time to hold the law supreme.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:44am
Right on the dot! It was indeed need of the hour to have an un-interrupted tenure completion of the government, absence of which has been the root cause of state of affairs in the country. Last thing a beleaguered nation could afford is the clash of its institutions when the same could have been averted if sense had prevailed by all quarters.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:51am
It is yet another Black Day in the history of Pakistan Democracy. This happens when persons do not know their limits and go beyond to SCORE their points. The question arises why the honorable court could not spell the whole judgement on the first instance and had to wait for constitutional pitition and announce the controversional judgement after TWO months. Was it a second thought after the exposure of Dr. Arsalan or it did not have courage on April 26. In my considered opinion the Chief Justice has become too controversional. If he thinks he is above this, he should resign unless he is playing in the hands of anti democratic powers.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:23pm
In a true democracy, the parliament would have impeached gilani itself. But this is Pakistan. The parliament which exists to defend the rulers has no right to represent the authority of the state.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:59am
Dawn, as usual has given a very sound and sane advise to the ruling party. However, many would not agree with its interpretation about crossing the Rubicon through this judgement. There were two political parties that initiated the court action. Clearly there is a large constituency that favoured this type of judgement.
In our short history we have been wrongfully taught to believe that somehow institutions' interests are equal to those of the country. At first it was the defence establishments that repeatedly arrogated itself this position and now political parties including the PPP had been advocating the party's interest as synonymous to those of the country. This was extremely harmful. All institutions including the judiciary should be subservient to the state as represented by its constitution.
In parliamentary democracies there is always this danger lurking in the background. But if we now draw the line, learn the only lesson worth remembering (that is the state is paramount and not individual institutions) then we will learn to build a strong and cohesive nation. We may even become the most effective democracy in the world.
The PPP must be congratulated for their wise reaction to this judgement. Let the people of Pakistan give their ultimate judgement in the next ballot. They are the ultimate rulers of the country.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 05:08am
For your newspaper the completion of 5 years is more important than Rule of Law and anything else. Why the Prime Minister did not resign when he was convicted?
The Editor appears to be aggrieved more than the PM while suggesting: "if the party has reservations against the judgment it should express these, perhaps even through a strongly worded parliamentary resolution".
From a newspaper like Dawn, this was least expected.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 04:19pm
The parliament made a fun of itself. In a true democracy, the parliament would have itself removed the PM in such circumstances. Here, the parliament exists to defend the position of rulers only.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 02:16pm
What nonsense, after giving its earlier judgement, the court had given parliament a chance to do its bit. When it did not, the three member bench yesterday merely explained the earlier verdict, as for some reason the PPP could not understand what a conviction of a parliamentarian means! yesterday was no new judgement.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 05:46am
This is indeed sad and unfortunate for this country to see this day.the judiciary ,i my opinion , has crossed the delicate line of interpreter of law and has put on a the clog of custodian of law.This has indeed left a worrying precedent for the future and is equally worrying for the people and the country.may sanity prevail...
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 01:55pm
I am utterly appalled at this editorial, something which was not expected from a newspaper like Dawn. Yes it is unfortunate that it has come to this, but it is the Government's fault rather than the judiciary's! Going by your argument, an elected government can do whatever it wants without any check and balance, since parliament won't do anything against the ruling party, as it enjoying a majority. Is PM's completion of a 5 year term more important than the rule of the law? Please remember, when the NRO was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it had given the government an opportunity to get it approved through the parliament, giving parliament a chance to play its role. Why didn't the government take that opportunity?
What happened yesterday was inevitable - and can you please tell me, how has that damaged democracy? PM has been disqualified but the parliament is still standing. Institutions are not dependent upon people, PM himself is not an institution, his office and the parliament are. Parliament has an authority to elect a new PM, doesn't it? Then how is democracy in danger?
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 01:51pm
Your editorial is consistent with your unflinching support of the PPP and Zardari
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 06:59am
The Editorial is too concerned about the 'Democratic elected government' and indirectly condemned the SC's verdict. But has accepted that corruption did exist in the system - from top to bottom. Secondly, one can see with nacked eyes the way the 'majority' formed in the Parliament. International norms indicate that the Head of the Government and PM and his cabinet has no MORAL ground to rule the country. They were treating the SC rulings as a 'clerical action'. This had to happen - like or dislike !
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 06:59am
With respect, I could not see any merit in Mr Gilani’s defence. Mr Gilani by not appealing the 7 bench’s decision; accepted that he was a convict. By not challenging the 7 bench decision he himself closed his legal/constitutional defence, if any – and he himself caused a situation where highly persuasive/plausible argument from the speaker was limbless. That had to fail. SC had to simply fill in the blanks since “Mr Gilani has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction”. Our consciousness need to mature and will mature in due course of time to recognise that neither Parliament nor Executive or the Judiciary are supreme – it is the Constitution and the Constitutional supremacy that should prevail under any governance – I consider the SC verdict advances that consciousness.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 07:04am
great analysis
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 07:06am
Addressing wrongs and making them right is not unfortunate.
"completing the five-year tenure of both an elected government and its chief executive would have been a much-needed win for Pakistan". Its sad that tenure completion is a 'win' justice served is unfortunate.
The decision if followed with similar judgements can help eradicate a lot of issues in the Pakistani society. If the high and mighty are not safe due to their status the common man with high connections will not be either - and they are the people which are destroying the fabric of society.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 07:10am
Well said.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 01:42pm
Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry has repeated the legacy of Justice Muneer. Like him, he has also committed an act of treason
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 07:51am
Had the Speaker appreciated the 'grey' followed in the earlier ruling, there would be no need for a 'black-and-white' ruling (although reference back to ECP would have been a better option).
Obsession with completing 5 year term and labeling it a win is misplaced and naive in a country where the same lot has ruled in one guise or another in the last 60 years and obfuscated in terms of real failures of their own making. Initially, a freeand fair early election evry two or three years, may go a long way in entrenching a far more stable system as both the ruled and the rulers can only mature through multiple elections.
In the interim, judicial activism acts more like a positive refinement process as the rulers with their hands in the cookie jar are unlikely to change habits of self-entitlement.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 08:02am
I tend to agree with the comment that that the judiciary's involvement or should one say instrumentalisation, in this case, is both unwise and unfitting,
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 08:04am
The party should've been able to take the "high moral ground" had the Prime Minister resigned in face of the conviction on April 26.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 08:10am
A seven member bench was shy to declare the PM disqualified directly despite having a lengthy verdict that even contained quotes from famous Khalil Jibran, while a three member bench (where CJ doesnt have any weightage of being CJ in a bench for the matters of law & justice) declares the disqualification in most harsh and unequvocal language. Is such a practice according to the law and is there any precedence of such a judgment where a smaller bench's order surpasses in severity , harshness and effect to the larger bench in the same case? Is there an attempt by the court in disqualification of PM to remove the pressure, hype, publicity and focus from Dr Arsalan Iftikhar's corruption and his father's connivance in son's malpractices? Why we have only three same judges assigned to all important cases related to Govt as well as Liberal elements? Are they part of a bigger scheme with PML(N) in taking the country into a civil war by bringing out PPP workers and CM Punjab's rioting agents in direct confrontation first in the streets of Punjab and then subsequently spreading it into every noke and corner of the country??Pakistanis need to wake up!!
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 08:28am
Unfortunate!How many PMs of PPP wil supreme court disqualfy on this issue?
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 08:41am
I think the government is solely responsible for this mishap.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 08:44am
I totally disagree with this distorted editorial.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 03:31pm
There is more to it than meets the eye.
It is an excessive harsh judgement delivered much after the original verdict.
Some of our bright lawyers or Media men should let people know what kind of judgement are delivered in contempt o court cases: to remain in the court till the rising of the course.
The relations between Judiciary and Parliament are marred for ever. God bless Pakistan.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 09:08am
This editorial is a political spin. Dawn needs to maintain its reputation by staying out of politics and focus on serving the public. To me, the editorial is disturbing and unacceptable.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 09:36am
PM's disqualification is a a drop back to a fragile democracy in Pakistan.That was not the way to blow the whistle on the contempt of the court by punishing and then disqualifying the the sitting Chief Executive of the country.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 09:40am
About the Precedent part, I think you have a point. But you people are overly obsessed with 'Demo-cracy'...
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 02:38pm
A very good article. I believe that this Prime Minister might have been the worst ever. But he was not removed for incompetence but for political reasons. I feel that the SC wants to do what the army has done till now-Rule. They have their own Election Commissioner and might as well end up with an Interim Government hand picked by Iftikar Chowdhary. The repercussions of this decision will be felt for a long long time. A sad day for Pakistan indeed.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 09:46am
How come the CJ doesn't show the same activism dealing with army or N Sharif?
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 09:46am
The P.M has been removed constitutionally not forcefully and these are common norms in the fully established democratic countries. so, there is no need to worry..
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 09:53am
The editorial of DAWN should have taken in to account what precedent would have been set without the latest verdict of the Supreme Court.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 09:57am
Consequences of infamous Justice Munir who set this precedence in 1954. DAWN wrote a great piece on it and it will be worth digging into that judgement. Hats off to PPP who have been shown exemplary democratic attitude and Gillani gracefully facing charges against him. Black day for the country and yet another self-inflicted constitutional insult in the name of "rule of law", this time for a change. No chance of a sword-waiving rider on horseback coming to rescue though.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 10:40pm
The part that Military used to play in Pakistan in the past has now been played by the Supreme Judiciary. The disqualification of an incumbent Prime Minister (holding office through valid means that is through democracy) by Judiciary and not by the Parliament is a very dangerous precedent. This is very dangerous for democracy. Even if one is to believe that the present Judiciary under the CJ Iftikhar M Chowdary is honest and blameless, where is the guarantee that CJs and Justices of future will be of the same high moral class...this indeed is 'a worrying precedent for the future'.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 11:15pm
Gilani was caught up in a genuine constitutional dilemma. Supreme Court should have interpreted the constitutional provisions for future . At present Supreme Court' s decisions mean that President does not have immunity. The only President not to have it. What a country.
Recommend
0
Jun 20, 2012 11:42pm
Though not a fan of this government, I have to agree with HRCP on this one. Law works on precedents and not individuals. I think everyone is focusing on the fact that a corrupt Prime Minister was removed, so it should be celebrated.
What some of my country men see today is: Ifthikhar Chuadry directed Yousaf Gillani to write a letter to Swiss authorities to bring back all the money embezzled by Zardari and once he refused, Chaudry sahib ruled that it is contempt of court and hence Gillani is no longer PM.....
But removing all the names, what do we have: The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, asked the Prime Minster of a country to write a letter to another country to start legal action against a President who has full immunity which even the Chief Justice does not deny, but says what is the harm in writing a letter? The Prime Minister replies that the harm is that it is not only an embarrassment to the President but to the whole country and contradicts the constitution (which gives him immunity to legal action in any country). The Chief Justice then ignoring the millions of people who indirectly (through their MNAs) used their constitutional right of voting to elect the Prime Minister and took it upon himself to dismiss the PM for not following his order
My first observation: Is this not the same thing Pervaiz Musharf did to Ifthikhar Chaudry (one guy refused to follow the orders, so the other guy took it upon himself to fire him, without caring whether he even has the power or right to do this?)... Secondly let us close our eyes and pretend we are 10 years from now and god willing, Imran Khan or another very honest person is the Prime Minister and a very corrupt Chief Justice orders him to do something the PM feels contradicts the Constitution. That CJ now has the power to slap Imran Khan with a contempt of court charge and declare that he is no longer the PM, as a precedent now already exists for this.
Let us not forget getting rid of these corrupt politicians is just one step and we should not let another take their place.
My two cents you don't have to agree if you don't want too, but I think this has diminished the power of my vote and my basic human right.
Recommend
0
Jun 21, 2012 01:56am
This democratic set up would not have been possible if a judge of the supreme court had not stood up to a ruling general and his coterie of generals and other civilian partners quite a few of whom are now a part of the current national government. He did it alone with out any political support at the time when he did this. There were no crowds out on the streets when he stood up, got beaten for his courage but did not submit and persevered. The very people who are in power now made a back door deal with the same group of generals in order to get back into power and once they got in they tried their level best to exclude the judge from resuming his work. It was not till the people forced them they they relented. To question the credential the judge by the supporters of the current rulers is really EXTRAORDINARY.
Recommend
0
Jun 21, 2012 02:34am
couldn't agree more
Recommend
0
Jun 21, 2012 03:17am
I, by and large, agree with the underlying point in the article that democracy should be allowed to flourish in Pakistan BUT I STRONGLY feel the court has excercised immense restraint in its proceedings against the government, but if the "democratically elected" government is hell bent upon ridiculing and bullying the court and making a mockery of its verdicts than after almost 5 YEARS of Patience, is it really a surprise if the court finally puts an end to this sham in the name of democracy?
No doubt critical issues remain but you can't let such conduct go unpunished :)
Recommend
0
