In his 24-page response to the Supreme Court, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has made it clear that he has no intentions of writing a letter to the Swiss authorities, which could bring about a reopening of cases against individuals, including President Asif Ali Zardari. The stance, of course, brings the executive into direct conflict with the judiciary; fierce party loyalty is also involved. The prime minister has already said that he is willing to go to jail rather than to write a letter and this, at least for now, has become a central issue on our political landscape.
The defiance of the court opens up many dilemmas. There is also an argument which suggests it is crucial to get to the bottom of what happened in the Swiss cases involving corruption worth billions. But there are also some simple facts that need to be faced. Emotions, rhetoric and accusations alone will lead us nowhere. Eventually, it is the law which must prevail. And the Constitution seems to state quite clearly that until the president holds office, he enjoys immunity and no case can be initiated against him. It is this clause that the prime minister says he is determined to uphold at all costs.
Certainly, it is vital that the Constitution — and all that it states — with regard to the letter be followed if we are to avoid a state of anarchy. We are already venturing far too close to such a situation. The question of immunity is one that draws different comments from either side. The prime minister, however, is determined to go by the document which determines the supreme law of the country and it is difficult to fault him for this. To a large extent, what happens next depends on the majority, or the lack of it — demonstrated by the Court, the government and its legal advisers — as we face the unpleasant prospects of yet another prime minister landing up in jail and further tensions evolving between key institutions.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 21st, 2012.
COMMENTS (10)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
according to the constitution of Pakistan, whenever an occaision arises where two or more articles or the constitution appears to be conflicting, the Supreme Court of Pakistan is the sole authority to interpret and determine which article should be preferred... in this case article 248 is used to provide cover for the black money but in our constitution there are a few other articles (article 8, 25, 227) which says equal rights for every citizen, no law can be made against islamic laws and everybody is accountable...so in this scenario the jiyalas may prefer the immunity as this suit them but the SC will decide whether there can be immunity or not...
First they should start trial in the country then say us, he has immunity why can we start trial in Switzerland. Swiss authority has the stance as above mentioned.
She is a senior lawyer, and has been president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, when asked her,to write or not write,she says, ''should not write''
Write or not write, not write,be convicted and sentenced. They want a new crisis,they become hero or martyr, Save passage would have to adopted,which leads to the parliament only. Put the matter before the elected institution,that is better according to my personal opinion.
The central question is of immunity of the head of State in an Islamic Republic as spelt out in the Constitution. The Constitution gives him immunity whereas under Islamic code of justice the head to State is to be treated as a normal person if charged with a crime. So now we have an issue of interpretation of the Constitution and the Supreme Court should be the body to do this and recommend change if needed. The PM being a loud advocate of late Benazir Bhutto could take a guide from her book 'Reconciliation' page 72 on this very subject, where she clearly states her views.
Judiciary is a balance wheel of whole system, but now the time has come,every citizen is compelled to think about future of the state,which secured after long standing tireless struggles.
I saw his writing when he wrote in the court . He was so bad in writing he must not write himself, hire a person with a big numeration :PP
Judiciary needs to stick to laws and conventions and never pursue what seems an agenda of the establishment. The establishment is always fickle and it will be shame if these cases, unresolved make the courts look foolish and inconsequential. To the CJ ----Keep up your good work but be wary of snakes.
By the same token Mr Zardari could put the money in a 'Trust Account' and contest the ownership of the money whence he is no longer the president.
The way it is . Our constitution is providing refuge from litigation to the president on an illegal act done when he was not the president. This just does not sound right.
Here is an example what others do:
German president resigns amid scandal Christian Wulff says he has lost the confidence of voters The Associated Press Posted: Feb 17, 2012 4:05 AM ET
The PCO SC judges are playing good cop and bad cop. They are not doing anything unconstitutional (like trying the president themselves) at the same time they want the coalition govt to try him in a foreign court. This way they achieve their goal without trying him in a court. Otherwise it is simple. The SC can determine (which they have without a trial) Zardari has committed crime and ask the Swiss to cooperate. Not start a tradition of any lower court to try a sitting head of Pakistan. If this happens then India, US, B. Desh and all other countries can easily try any Pakistani official at will. According to SC of Pakistan if a lower Swiss court should try President then all officers and protectors of OBL would be a fair game for foreign courts.