Why the Supreme Courts ruling on Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani is Unconstitutional
Tuesday, June 19th, 2012 4:39:33 by Syed Hassan Bokhari
Why the Supreme Courts ruling on Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani is Unconstitutional
Unfortunately, the democratic process in Pakistan has once again come to a halt and seems like all steps taken in the past to ensure separations of powers amongst the highest institutions in the country have failed miserably as the Supreme Court termed Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani as “ineligible” to hold the office.
Sadly, a unanimously elected Prime Minister by the people of Pakistan is once again become a target of undemocratic forces, this time not by the military, but instead the higher judiciary.
One thing that really confuses a student of the Pakistani constitution is that in it, the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, clearly states the following in article 248(2).
“No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or a Governor in any court during his term of office.”
Looking at that clause of the constitution, how can the Supreme Court, whose duty is to interpret the constitution, expect the Prime Minister to initiate an cases or reopen any previously made cases against President Asif Ali Zardari?
Even a person who has just read that part of the constitution will be able to tell anyone that how clearly it states that fact.
Not only that, Article 281(1) also has the same for the Prime Minister as it states that he will not be answerable to any court in the country for the actions performed during his term in office.
Another aspect of the situation was that Yousaf Raza Gillani has been termed to be “ineligible” by the apex court for defaming and/or ridiculing the Supreme Court. Can they really point a finger towards the Prime Minister and blame him for any single such incident when he might have defamed or ridiculed them?
Defaming and ridiculing is something that Dr. Babar Awan did and does deserve to be punished according to the law, but personally, I have never heard the democratically elected Prime Minister speak against the Supreme Court in such a way other than saying that I, being a defender of the constitution, cannot open up any case against the President.
What is wrong with that? Looking at the constitution, it seems perfectly fine.
Where in the constitution does it say that the Supreme Court is eligible to disqualify a member of the national assembly, which is definitely the highest institution of the country because it is the direct representation of the people.
The Supreme Court is stepping over boundaries and will ultimately lead to further mayhem in the country which is already facing numerous problems internally and external. Instead of diving the people and influencing public opinion without any given mandate, the Supreme Court must be obliged to follow the constitution and actually play its role in the progress of Pakistan instead of hindering it like previous biased judges and army generals.
(Subscribe to the Writer’s Updates on Facebook at www.Facebook.com/HassanBokhari)
Tags: ineligible, Prime Minister, Supreme Court, unconstitutional, Yousaf Raza GillaniShort URL: https://www.newspakistan.pk/?p=26295
Posted by Syed Hassan Bokhari
on Jun 19 2012. Filed under Editorial, Latest News, Opinion, Pakistan, Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Dear author,
when objective resolution is a part of constitution, then no head of state can have “soverieng indemnity”,
Negative Article. A Man who just looted the whole nation, cannot be disqualified due to the sake of democratic process. What a shame.
Elected by people … HUH.
Its unfortunate that you weren’t given the chance to defend our honest and hard working PM in the courts. Democracy is not just elections, forming of a government and ruling the country uninterrupted for the next five years. With democracy becomes great responsibility, transparency, morality(if you please) etc. Cosmetics cannot cure cancer but, yes, may add to it!
Unfortunately, the author seems to defend a helpless and hopeless Mr Gillani. It is very disappointing to see that the author is trying to defend Mr Gillani on a technicality. The constitution, my dear friend, serves only one purpose, and that is to serve and secure the best interests of its people. Mr Gillani has not done one thing that would help secure his peoples prosperity. I hope you look at the broader picture. Your analysis though true on a technicality, does not mean that Mr Gillani be allowed to rape this country of its prosperity. The people of this country will hopefully show you that in the upcoming elections.