Pakistan

Dual offices: LHC to hear contempt petition against Zardari on September 27

Hearing was earlier scheduled for September 21 but was cancelled on account of Ishq-e-Rasool (pbuh) Day.

Rana Tanveer September 24, 2012

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court announced on Monday that the contempt of court petition against President Asif Ali Zardari will be heard on September 27. The hearing was earlier scheduled for September 21 but was cancelled on account of Ishq-e-Rasool (pbuh) Day.

The petition, moved by Munir Ahmad through Muhammad Azhar Siddique and AK Dogar, had maintained that the president committed contempt of court by not discontinuing his political activities despite court orders.

The petitioner had submitted that holding the presidency for partisan political activities was not only illegal but also in contempt of the court orders dated May 12, 2011 as defined in Article 204 of the Constitution.

A five-member bench, headed by LHC Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, will hear the petition. The bench also comprises of Justice Nasir Saeed Sheikh, Sheikh Najamul Hassan, Ijazul Ahsan and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.

Earlier, the bench had issued a notice to Zardari through his principal secretary for a reply, but it has not been submitted yet. The court had also turned down the federal government’s plea to become party in the petition, but allowed it to become a pro forma respondent.

COMMENTS (2)

basharat | 12 years ago | Reply There is no provision in the Constitution that bars the President to hold office of a political party. Conditions of President´s office have been provided in Article 43 of the constitution. The Court is not empowered to order the President to perform an act or prohibit from doing any thing unless it is so specifically provided in the Constitution. One Prime Minster has been disqualified, another is likely to follow suit, and the President is being proceeded against despite the constitutional immunity, unequivocally provided in the Constitution.

Ammar | 12 years ago | Reply

It would be better for federation, and judiciary if judges reconsider their jurisdiction and extent to which they can stretch their powers,while hearing this case.

Replying to X