Prefer contempt charges over violating Constitution: Gilani

I'd rather be incarcerated for contempt than be handed the death penalty by violating Article 6, says Gilani.


Web Desk March 15, 2012

BAHAWALPUR: As the issue for writing a letter to Swiss authorities gains momentum, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani said on Thursday that he would rather be incarcerated for contempt of court than be handed a death penalty for violating Article 6 of the Constitution.

Speaking to a gathering of Islamia University’s students in Bahawalpur, Gilani said that he is not writing a letter to the Swiss authorities according to the rules of business and Constitution. “If I write the letter, it will be a violation of the Article 6 of the Constitution.”

Prime Minister Gilani was served a contempt notice in the NRO implementation case when the government did not follow the court’s orders of writing a letter to the Swiss authority to reopen graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.

Seraiki province issue

Days after raising voice for the creation of a Seraiki province, Gilani said that those who talk about formation of Bahawalpur and Seraiki province only want to cast a dispute among the people.

Lashing out at the parties demanding new provinces, he said, “If they talk so much for the creation of Bahawalpur and Seraiki province, I ask, they should try moving a resolution in the Punjab Assembly. They will not let anything like this happen.”

He said that administrative rights were given to the Bahawalpur province in the British colonial era. “We don’t want administrative rights. We want our own provincial assembly.”

E-Publications

Most Read

COMMENTS (41)

hasan | 9 years ago | Reply

@B N Mohapatra: What is your point? Your answer fails to address the points that I have raised.

B N Mohapatra | 9 years ago | Reply

@hasan: This statement may appear as nonsense to you, because you may have different level and angle of understanding things depending on your personal education, experience, exposures etc etc and I have no hesitation in reading your point of view in that context. But Its the truth and constitutionally right. About his answering to Parliament. he is adequately doing that job and enjoys the confidence of the Parliament. He need not enjoy the confidence of the Judiciary because that is another organ of the State and can have conflicting interests.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ