Yousaf Raza Gilani may have vacated the prime minister house without making too much noise after being disqualified by the court – but now that the weight of the office is off him, the former premier has begun venting his frustration at the verdict, and he is voicing his concern at the precedent it has set.
Speaking at an event organised on Saturday by the South Asia Free Media Association (Safma), Gilani said that, though he had accepted the court’s order, he didn’t agree with it at all. “It is the sole prerogative of parliament to disqualify a prime minister,” he said, referring to his conviction and subsequent disqualification by the Supreme Court for not obeying its orders of writing a letter to Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.
Gilani said that he refused to obey the court because the Constitution gives immunity to the president under Article 248 – which, he said, was common knowledge.
In any case, the former prime minister said, even if he was found guilty of contempt, it was not for the court to send him packing. “No sword should be left hanging over the head of the current prime minister,” he said, opposing the authority of the court to oust a representative of the people. He recalled that his government had removed Article 58(2)(b) which removed the president’s power to remove a prime minister – and now this power was vested solely in the hands of the representatives of the people.
“It is the function of parliament and the people of Pakistan to elect or reject a prime minister,” he reiterated. “Except parliament, no one has power to send an elected prime minister packing.”
He said that history will decide whether the court was right or wrong – pointing out that it was the court that ordered the hanging of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, but the people had rejected this verdict. Parliament, he said, was supreme and the completion of their tenures was imperative for the survival and growth of democracy in Pakistan.
The former premier had some interesting analogies to explain why he had accepted the court’s decisions silently. His acceptance, he said, was like that of Socrates, the famous ancient Greek philosopher who drank hemlock to end his life on the order of a jury. “Though it was wrong, Socrates respected the order of the judiciary of his time, and I, too, complied with the court ruling in order to give the respect to the judiciary.”
Repeating his comments from Thursday, he said that his three wishes had come true: “I left the prime minister house with honour, attended the farewell dinner of outgoing prime minister and was not disqualified by parliament and the speaker.”
And as a parting shot, a cheeky Gilani even recited some poetry - returning the favour for the poetry cited by Supreme Court judge Asif Saeed Khosa, his former classmate, in the judgment that held him in contempt.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 1st, 2012.
COMMENTS (14)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Constitution does not allow a convicted person to remain parliamentarian(law maker) and the logic is law breaker can not be a law maker..
The PCO judges must be impeached by the parliament for forcing people (PM in this case) to go against what is clearly written in constitution. Judges interpret the constitution when something gray or murky comes up which is not clearly defined in constitution not when it is clearly stated. The PCO CJ should focus his guns toward the terrorists for a change who have been killing hundreds of innocent citizens, but there is no political advantage in that!
@Muhammad: Be honest and tell me that were the people of Pakistan who elected a criminal as their President? Not at all, he is a cheater and most corrupt man in the history of Pakistan and look at his team including Mr Galani all from A to Z are corrupt people. Just compare Pakistan 5 years ago and now. Please stop be foolish and also stop making people foolish. Up to some extent yes parliament is superior but when question comes to interprate the law then it's judiciary who is superier and their interpretation should be accepted to every body. No criminal should be given right to interprate law according to his need and he must not allowed to get shelter behing this nonsense excuses that parliament is superier.
@DevilHunterX: When did anyone say they were allowed? People have been saying all along that they aren't allowed but if you go and make the criminal a president, you're going to have to hold off on doing something about it until he's no longer president. Best fix? Don't elect someone as president if you simultaneously want to put him through a court trial. That's why making decisions requires accepting at least a bit of responsibility for the result.
It's the parliament which is supreme , it's the will of the people not judiciary.
Here is a lesson for all leaders: No matter how poor a judgement is but when deep in your heart you are not pure but corrupt, now you can not speak for your defense, your throat will dry-up, you eyes will roll, your legs will tremble and finally you find yourself infront of the gallows. For therapy's sake: Once in a while such adults must play with Kids to see the Truth and the Innocence right-in-the-eyes, then go home and look them self up in the mirror.
I think yes he is right to say that parliament is superior and it's respocibility els includes to make laws for the batter net of the people and the country. But I think he (the whole govt party) is dilibratley missing this point that the interpretation of the law comes from the Judiciary and that is should be acceptable and should be binding for everybody other wise you are opening a pandora box for all convicts that they don't accept the conviction because they interprate law and constitution different way that suites them.
Under what constitution is corruption & nepotism allowed?
I wonder if this is honour, what would be a disgrace for Gillani?
The chief judge and The Brethren are totally out of control.
"Gilani said that he refused to obey the court because the Constitution gives immunity to the president under Article 248 – which, he said, was common knowledge."
And this they never argued in the court because they know then court will start proceedings about this Article 248.
The audacity of this is, Mr Gilani says the people's wishes were with him. This MAY be true, but what did he do for the people's wishes. His tenure was the worst ever. Increased inflation and worsening of law and order did nothing for the masses. Shame on him to even play that card