Any law or amendment passed by two third majority of National Assembly and Senate (good or bad) becomes a part of the constitution and dismantling by judiciary legally becomes a coup- d’etat by itself that is a treason.Pakistan's constitution is by itself highly contradictory and based on politics and raped over and over again.The whole fuss is that judiciary created an unlawful situation to extend their own power. Agree that PPP Government is corrupt, incompetent and have all the ills that all the others leaders and political parties also have but it is not judiciary’s territory and intentionally or unintentionally they are harming Pakistan unparalleled to any other institution in the past or present.The court is interfering in civilian political matters.
Judiciary in Pakistan should be renamed or reclassified as Judicial Brigade of Pakistan army. Their function, at least in essence, is not much different from the notorious 111 Brigade (expert in military coup).
Pakistan already has established judicial dictatorship, since march 2009. peoples, whom believe in democracy, have to fight against this dictatorship as they did against Zia ul Haq dictatorship.
There is no difference between Zia ul Haq and Choudary Iftikhar. Judicial dictatorship is worse than army martial law.
Unfortunately, today, PPP does not have genuine leadership like Benazir. PPP and other democratic forces should come out and make this judicial dictatorship as main issue in next election. Because this judiciary is destroying constitution, parliament and whole system.
Many independent peoples already start realizing this activism as a dictatorship. I am sure, If ppp able to make this political judicialization as main issue in next election. Then, those political parties, whom are advancing their propaganda and depending on this judiciary to win next election, will be defeated.
PPP has big chance to win next election, If they used and advance their election campaign on this main issue.
1 comment:
The SC has neither taken account of presidential immunity under Article 248, nor, except in passing remarks about those seeking immunity having to apply to the court for it, attempted an interpretation of this Article. The government side has seemingly been reluctant to be drawn into an argument over Article 248, probably because it is its perception that it will not receive a sympathetic hearing from the SC, rather the reverse. The court’s insistence has begun to invite criticism of its approach, not the least from former Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Ms Asma Jahangir, whose words reflect the mounting anger against the judiciary in some legal circles. She has squarely accused the judiciary of delivering political rather than judicial verdicts. Her statement is lent at least partial support by the present SCBA president Yasin Azad, who has suggested to the court that perhaps the best solution to the conundrum is for the court to set up a commission to write the by now infamous letter. He has also pointed to the political and economic instability being caused by the air of uncertainty this standoff is producing in and around the country. Perhaps the middle way is not only the best, but also the only way out of this impasse.
Post a Comment