Posts Tagged ‘ Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry ’

Rehman Malik Escapes Disqualification

By Irfan Ghauri for The Express Tribune

In a move that raises a number of questions, and possibly a number of ramifications, election authorities announced on Tuesday that they have decided not to disqualify Interior Minister Rehman Malik.

The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) said that it had endorsed the stand of Senate authorities that no question of disqualification had arisen in the case of Senator Malik – who was under scrutiny for submitting false statements to the Supreme Court in the dual nationality case.
The deputy chair of the Senate, Sabir Baloch, who is currently the acting chairman, rejected two separate references against Senator Malik that sought his disqualification.

Earlier, on September 20, the Supreme Court had taken note of a conflict between Senator Malik’s statements and the evidence provided by him in a
case probing dual national parliamentarians. Eleven federal and provincial lawmakers found to have dual nationality were held to be disqualified by the Supreme Court, given that Pakistani citizens holding foreign nationalities are not eligible to be parliamentarians, according the Constitution of Pakistan.

However, Senator Malik’s case was unique, and the court did not issue a direct verdict on his matter, and only raised the question of disqualification.

During the course of the case, Senator Malik had told the court that he had renounced his British citizenship before being elected to the Senate in 2008. However, when his documents were scrutinized, a blatant conflict emerged: The evidence suggested that his renunciation had taken place on May 29, 2012 – that is, when the court had taken notice of the matter.
As the matter was being heard in court, and his status as Senator was suspended, Malik resigned from the Senate on July 11, 2012 – and was then reelected within two weeks. Ostensibly, this would have given the interior minister cover – given that he had actually renounced his citizenship before resigning and being reelected. But the issue of perjury (lying under oath) came to the fore.

“Mr. A. Rahman Malik, in view of the false declaration filed by him at the time of contesting the election to the Senate held in the year 2008, wherein he was elected, cannot be considered sagacious, righteous, honest and ameen within the contemplation of section 99(1)(f) of the Act of 1976. Therefore, for such purposes Article 63(p) is to be adhered to because the disqualification incurred by him is envisaged under the law, referred to hereinabove in view of his own statement that he had renounced his citizenship of UK whereas the fact remains that such renunciation along with declaration can only be seen as having been made on 29.05.2012,” reads a portion of the court order regarding Senator Malik.
Two references had been pending with the Senate chairman regarding Senator Malik’s disqualification: One by a citizen Asif Ezdi, and another similar one by lawyer Maulvi Iqbal Haider, who had relied on the observations of the Supreme Court.
But the two were dismissed.

“Reference Supreme Court short order dated 20-09-2012, detailed judgment dated 16-10-2011, reference of Mr. Asif Azdi dated 26-08-2012 and reference of Malik Iqbal Haider dated 22-09-2012 I have held that no question of disqualification has arisen in respect of senator A. Rehman Malik. Resultantly the Election Commission of Pakistan is being informed accordingly,” wrote Sabir Baloch in his letter to the ECP.
Notably, the ECP did not issue any formal statement on the matter on Tuesday. Instead, it was verbally conveyed by officials of the commission to the media. They said the reference regarding Malik is disposed of and no further action can be taken against the minister.
Deadline passed?

Under the process, the Senate chairman has 30 days to decide on the matter and forward it to the ECP. The ECP has 60 days to take action on the matter. If no decision comes on the part of the Senate chairman in the stipulated 30 days, the case is deemed to have automatically been forwarded to the ECP.

Following the September 20 court orders, the Senate chairman had until October 20th to forward the matter to the ECP.
Interestingly, the letter by the Senate’s (acting) chairman to ECP was disclosed on Tuesday (October 23). In fact, Chief Election Commissioner Justice (retd) Fakhruddin G Ebrahim had himself told the media on Monday that the ECP was yet to receive a letter from the Senate regarding Senator Malik’s case. Though the date mentioned in the letter disclosed on Tuesday is “October 20th” sources said it was actually received by the ECP on October 22nd.

The ECP’s meeting regarding this matter was scheduled for Monday, but was postponed due to a meeting between the chief election commissioner and Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.

Respite?

While the decision seems to have brought the interior minister some respite, the move could yet be challenged in court.
Earlier this year, the National Assembly Speaker Fehmida had held that no question of disqualification had arisen in the case of the then prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, and did not forward the matter to the ECP. Later, her decision was challenged, and the apex court ultimately overruled her. Gilani was disqualified from premiership as well as his National Assembly seat.

Dr Asim resigns
Senator Dr Asim Hussain, who holds the portfolio of advisor to the prime minister on petroleum, resigned from his Senate seat on Tuesday. He was part of the next batch of parliamentarians faced with court proceedings on their nationality status.
However, he will continue in his capacity as ‘advisor,’ which does not require him to be a member of Parliament.

Advertisements

Political Instability Rises as Pakistani Court Ousts Premier

As Reported by Delcan Welsh for The New York Times

The Supreme Court dismissed Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani on Tuesday, drastically escalating a confrontation between the government and the judiciary and plunging the political system into turmoil.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry declared that Mr. Gilani’s office had been effectively vacant since April 26 when the court convicted him on contempt charges because he refused to pursue a corruption case against President Asif Ali Zardari, his superior.

Although the decision is unlikely to topple the government, many viewed it as the product of a grudge-driven tussle between Mr. Zardari and Justice Chaudhry, with the prime minister caught in the middle.

“The court has been gunning for the prime minister for a long time,” said Najam Sethi, a veteran political analyst. “Clearly there is a lot of politics in this.”

The order left Pakistan in a state of constitutional uncertainty, with the cabinet effectively dismissed. The court instructed Mr. Zardari to “ensure continuation of the democratic process” — words widely interpreted as an order to arrange the election of a new prime minister.

Legal experts said Mr. Gilani could not appeal the decision but that he may continue in an interim role until a successor is chosen. It was unclear what impact the decision would have on troubled negotiations with the United States to reopen NATO supply lines through Pakistan into Afghanistan.

As word of the ruling spread, Pakistanis held their breath for reaction from the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party, whose top leaders held an emergency session at Mr. Zardari’s house. Television stations reported that the party had agreed in principle to accept the court’s ruling, but a final decision was not expected until later Tuesday.

Shahbaz Sharif, a senior leader of the opposition Pakistan Muslim League-N Party, which instigated the court action, hailed the decision. “It upholds the supremacy of the law and the Constitution,” Mr. Sharif said.

But it calls into question the validity of all executive decisions made since April 26, including the passing of the federal budget. One commentator said it “opened a massive legal can of worms.”

Speculation swirled about the identity of a replacement prime minister; among the names circulating were those of the foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, and various stalwarts from the party’s electoral heartland in Sindh Province and southern Punjab.

Any candidate, however, will need the approval of the P.P.P.’s coalition partners — smaller, ethnically centered parties based in Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar, who are likely to seek fresh concessions from Mr. Zardari in exchange for their votes in Parliament.

The court decision advanced the likelihood that general elections, scheduled to take place by next spring, could be brought forward.

Equally, however, Mr. Zardari may wish to first resolve some of the governance failures that have marred his government’s reputation, notably widespread power outages and system failures that have continued for years. The court decision coincided with street agitation in Punjab, the country’s most populous province, where rioters burned buildings and clashed with police in several cities on Monday and Tuesday to protest power outages.

“Law has become subservient to politics, but this government had it coming. It has been singularly inept,” said Mr. Sethi, the analyst. “They had six months to anticipate the power crisis, and now it is upon them.”

In dismissing Mr. Gilani, the court chose the strongest option. It could have referred Mr. Gilani’s case to the Election Commission of Pakistan, which could have taken up to three months to adjudicate the case.

It comes at the end of a tumultuous week for the court itself. Last week, a billionaire businessman made explosive accusations in court and in the media that he had given $3.7 million in kickbacks to Justice Chaudhry’s son in order to swing several cases his way. The furor over those accusations, centered on the judge’s son, Arsalan Iftikhar, is now likely to fade as the country grapples with its latest political crisis.

Mr. Gilani’s dismissal stems from longstanding demands by the court that Mr. Gilani write a letter to the authorities in Switzerland to seek to reopen a dormant corruption investigation into Mr. Zardari’s finances that started in the 1990s.

Mr. Gilani refused, arguing that he was unable to do so because the president enjoyed immunity from prosecution. And the prime minister signaled long ago that he was ready to be dismissed or face prison in the case.

After Mr. Gilani was convicted on contempt charges on April 26, the speaker of Parliament examined calls for his dismissal from public office. The court intervened after the speaker, who is a member of the ruling party, ruled that Mr. Gilani should not be dismissed.

“What will happen to independence of judiciary if speaker or Parliament tries to scrutinize judicial rulings?” Justice Chaudhry said on Tuesday. “No one can undo a court verdict except a court of appeals.”

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: