Not appealing against verdict wasn't a mistake, says Ahsan
Speaking on the premises of the Supreme Court, Ahsan said that he had the appeal document ready, but the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) had decided not to file it.
He said that the document – consisting of 250 pages and 146 questions – was prepared by him, but the PPP had decided not to appeal against the verdict, fearing that Gilani would be disqualified.
“The court however decided what the PPP feared. The seven-member bench did not disqualify him, but the three-member bench did. It would have made no difference.”
He said that the three-member bench, in its April 26 verdict, had announced that a “question is likely to arise” on Gilani’s disqualification, however, it did not disqualify him.
“The bench said yesterday that I should have filed an appeal against the verdict,” said Ahsan. “They also said that they cannot amend their decision, I say you have amended it – you did what the seven-member bench did not do.”
Barrister Ahsan said that he had prayed several times before the court that it should not take a decision against individuals, as it leaves no room for an appeal. “If tomorrow, the court rules that I am no more a senator, then it leaves no room for me to appeal. Hence, suo motu notices are not taken in cases in which the respondent cannot appeal.”
He said that whoever will take the PM office will be issued a new order to write a letter to the Swiss authorities.
“My opinion has never changed. I have said this time and again that there is no harm in writing a letter to the Swiss authorities, but not writing is also not a crime.”
He said that until President Asif Ali Zardari is in power, a letter could not be written against him.
COMMENTS (20)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1734609344-0/Untitled-(69)1734609344-0-165x106.webp "article")
1721739746-0/BeFunky-collage-(12)1721739746-0-165x106.webp "article")
1724319076-0/Untitled-design-(5)1724319076-0-270x192.webp "imran calls pti s negotiation team to adiala jail")
1734511806-0/Untitled-design-(5)1734511806-0-270x192.webp "saim ayub breaks brian lara s odi record")
1734468458-0/Copy-of-Untitled-(50)1734468458-0-270x192.webp "salman agha shares man of the match award with saim ayub in touching gesture")
@YA how stupid you people are who are giving comments against SC and favouring Gelani. Pakistan is not changing because of you intellectuals. Democracy doesn't mean to elect people and let them do anything whatever they want like they are people above law. Democracy is a curse without justice and accountability. You are talking about the world, tell me where in the whole world a PM won't resign after being convicted by court? It never happens anywhere else in the world coz anyone even accused of something (let alone convicted) resigns straightaway so courts don't need to disqualify them.
Sadly, Our Judges hate Democracy and Publicly Elected leaders, their decisions overall history somehow came out always in-favor-of Generals, Radicals, Clergy and their own personal views, and not the true unbiased judicial conscience.
we cannot believe that judges of supreme court are angles. their derdicts r perfect. Three judges can not outset the elected p m of 180. million people ..surely this is disrespect of public mendate.
@ Shahid Shakur: Courts dont have any right to change the people's choice even if the people are not happy with their choice, that's why we have election. I do not know if the constitution of Pakistan provides such powers to the SC to disqualify a sitting PM (even if he is a thief), and if it does the parliament should change the Constitution, so that 3 people cannot override a mandate of 180 million people.
Ahsan is right. The Age of Judicial Dictatorship has dawned upon Pakistan. Appealing against the verdict would not have made any difference.
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.
This sets a dangerous precedence, irrespective of PPP's track record. No where in the world has a Supreme Court conducted such an irresponsible action against a sitting PM. Talk about playing politics on the back of the Judiciary, just shameful. For all those celebrating: change requires patients and consistency (from the population as well as government institutions). Impatience and inconsistency typically become a wrath not a miracle.
Amazed at how the trolls who usually comment on pieces like this lack even a cursory understanding of law and think that everything is one giant conspiracy.
We should learn to live with the judges we have.. rather than ..we should have..
Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan you have done excellant job in Rs.100/- fee. Your contribution in removing is more than PTI & PML-N. Well done!
Just accept the defeat
If the Prime Minister and his government had delivered on reasonably acceptable governance for the people of Pakistan it would have been very hard for the SC to have done this.
YUP ! It wasn't a mistake ..all intentionally done.....
Of course the Supreme Court would have done the same in that scenario especially when the haste shown in dealing with these petitions is remarkable.
Your party planned to launch Riaz Mailk and media go get rid off CJ by that time and Gillani would remain PM. Great game but mind this "God is greatest planner".
Well done Aitzaz Ahsan for refraining EX PM from his right to appeal. Wasn't that intentional?
Its was acceptance that the PM was disqualified.
Admitting a mistake is even a bigger mistake, bravo!