Pak Tea House » Pakistan » Restoration of CJ Iftikhar Imminent: Sources
Restoration of CJ Iftikhar Imminent: Sources
Disclaimer: PTH takes no responsibility for the veracity of the suggestions made below.
Pakistan army and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani have asked President Asif Ali Zardari to go if he does not accept a new deal hatched by them in consultation with foreign powers.
The new political deal, backed by Washington, London and the army establishment, has quietly been conveyed to Pakistan PM Gilani, to bring down the political temperature in the country. As part of the deal, the PM has been asked to immediately convince Zardari to demonstrate the flexibility required to break the present deadlock, before the ‘Long March’ reaches Islamabad.
Gilani has reportedly been given 24 hours to convince Zardari into agreeing to the new political and constitutional arrangement, as further delay will not produce any positive results for the political forces currently on the warpath. The ball is now firmly in the court of President Zardari, who has to take a decision swiftly on endorsing the agreement brokered by powerful international actors.
If Zardari does not accept the new deal then:
* Army, foreign powers will be left with no option but to implement ‘minus-one formula’
* Presidents office will be completely marginalised, Zardari will be removed
* Gilani will take over as power will be restored to PM office
* Nawaz Sharif’s PML(N) will join the cabinet
* Deposed SC chief Justice Iftikar Chaudhary will be reappointed.
Terms of the deal are:
* Pak PM Gilani has been asked to convince Zardari to accept the new political and constitutional arrangement
* The deal also states the removal of Punjab governor Salman Taseer, who is an obstacle to good relations between the PPP and the PML(N)
* Implementation of the new Constitutional package through the Parliament
* The deal also demands the restoration of Supreme Court Justice Ifthikar Chaudhary.
Since March 11, there have been a series of meetings that have shaped this deal.
The Pakistan army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani met PM Gilani in Islamabad on March 11, where in the ninety minute meeting the former essentially told the latter to set the deal in motion.
On Thursday, the US ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson met former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. The reason ostensibly was after Sharif alleged that there was a plot to assassinate him.
Meanwhile, the PM has not met the president after he returned from his trip to Dubai. He has however been talking to the President over the phone.UK foreign secretary David Miliband also telephoned President Asif Ali Zardari to discuss the present situation on Thursday.
Filed under: Pakistan · Tags: Democracy, Gilani, Iftikhar Chaudhry, lawyers movement, Miliband, Pakistan, Pakistan Army, UK, US, Zardari
55 Responses to "Restoration of CJ Iftikhar Imminent: Sources"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- Skeptic
said Fingolfin,
Why blame the mullahs? The real proble... - PMA
said Dr. Jalal & Dr. Bose both are academician &... - Rex Minor
said Rajtoo,
I have no problems with your statements... - Mubaraka
said Mr. AKB
Can you please point out which article of... - yasser said no comments plz
- Skeptic said I read somewhere that Manto wrote thrice to Ismat...
- ahem said to tajender
Pak hindus were hoping that saeed w...
- Majumdar said AKB sb,
Pakistan is a sunni state and by s...
- tajender
said Find one Islamic institution working for the welfa... - RajTOO
said Rex Minor,
on the contrary, Muslims cannot take p...
So during the next 24 hours something “acceptable” will emerge? I am not so sure about the reinstatement of CJ -
Disclaimer by PTH is fine but who is the ‘claimer’ of this ‘breaking’ news?
Sources
One who have gone by saying
NO……to the COAS
Will come with the YES
of A COAS
Democracy Won…..
Be Ready to Celiberate
Basant K sath Eik Celiberation FREE….
Similar optimism is expressed on http://pakistanpolicy.com/
I see the opponents of the lawyers’ movement are now finding it hard to save face.
Well here is the news- I confirm at this time that there is a very strong chance the Prime Minister of Pakistan will address the nation announcing the immediate restoration of CJP Chaudhry Iftikhar and the end to the unconstitutional governor rule in Punjab.
The Pakistan Army is stepping in to save democracy in Pakistan!
What a bloody joke! Anyways, lets hope you guys can work something out for your country’s sake.
If CJ Iftikhar is reinstated, I reiterate that it would be a great thing for democracy.
However, it is something that is bound to make Zardari nervous. He is in bad shape and will rapidly need to mend fences with all the people he has fallen out with.
Aww Ravi…you wanted more chaos and now you are disappointed. It is alright.
If you had been more aware, you would know that an army that refuses to take over and backs the chief executive of the country ie Prime Minister …it would be the army fulfilling its role as force subordinate to the elected chief executive of the country.
It is a positive thing.
Is this Iftikaar fellow really clean or he just became a hero overnight because of opposing musharraf? I have no clues someone pls enlighten me….on the face of it….he does not seem ‘dudh ka dhula’
@ylh – it doesn’t matter what I wanted, but for the record I am happy that Pakistan is developing somewhat of a fledgling democratic spirit.
//the chief executive of the country ie Prime Minister //
I wonder who exactly is the chief executive of your country under the present system. Legally I think its Zaradri but then ‘legally’ is not a term that would be of much relevance now would it?
Oh and to add to the irony I see ‘foreign powers’ are also working hard to try and restore people power to Pakistan. Maybe they are also being subservient to Pakistan’s Chief executive.
My god I can scarcely imagine the stuff Manto would have churned out if he was alive today.
Of course there’s a good chance that he would not have allowed to write or plain killed under some Islamic law.
It is the army that seems to have a developed a democratic spirit because the people of Pakistan have always wanted democracy and have expressed it through out …when they came out to support Fatima Jinnah against Ayub, when they threw out Ayub, when they fought zia’s dictatorship, when they drove out Musharraf.
As for who is the chief executive…constitutionally that remains the PM…
As for “foreign powers” …you Indians are just too funny. I am privy to the ins and outs of this deal…the foreign powers have had no real role except their concern about the war on terror that is going on at our border.
There are many writers in Pakistan who have written stuff of the kind Manto wrote…if anything, Manto is more widely available today and more widely read then he was then.
Saadat Hassan Manto’s nephew, the great leftist Abid Hassan Manto is one of the leading lights of this movement. His son
though perhaps not as eloquently. So your little superiority-laden comment is just that – of a sarial(burnt) bigoted Indian who is suddenly upset that things might not go the way he was gleefuly expecting them to go.
Yup, exrtemely democratic people. Being ruled by dictators and such is of course bad luck.
//As for who is the chief executive…constitutionally that remains the PM…//
I think your wrong. Zaradri with his powers can dismiss your parliament thus putting the PM out of a job, legally speaking.
Again as I said earlier, ‘legally’ is not very relevant here.
Yes, everything is quite hunky dory. As it is poor Manto spent half his life in Pakistan in courts and such and today he would have been feted is it?
You make it seem as if Pakistan has progressed in the last 60 years!
It’s a report from Rauf Klasra….No valid sources…seems to me like one of the rubbish as of saleh Zafar about Musharraf arrest and plane ready to take off to get him out of the country…
Just sensationalism
Ravi,
Constitutional definition of chief executive is not about who can dismiss him but on whose advice the President acts … and who heads the cabinet…
The difference between authority to dismiss and the power to act determines who the chief executive is.
Constitutional conventions all dictate that wherever presidential action occurs in the constitution, it is subject to premier’s advice. This is a supreme court judgment.
What you say goes for a classical parliamentary democracy. Unfortunately, the current powers of the prez of pak are not those of a say the prez of India, whose role is largely ceremonial.
He can dismiss parliament on his own without waiting for the advice of his ministers. Zaradri came to power promising to abplish these very powers but he didn’t. So all said and done the prez is, legally, yr CE. Please try and understand that.
Ravi,
“Half his life”
I am beginning to think that you are merely name dropping because had you known a thing or two about Manto…you would know that he died in 1955 and had moved to Lahore in 1947 …that is a period of 8 years in which he went to court in only one case and was acquitted I think.
Most of his life was spent in Amritsar and Bombay till 1947…and most of the cases he faced were by British authorities.
I spent my childhood playing in the same building in Lakshmi Mansions in Lahore where Manto lived for most his time in Pakistan and where his daughter still lives.
//So all said and done the prez is, legally, yr CE. Please try and understand that.//
I agree
“Half his life in Pakistan”–half his life post ’47.
Unlike you I spent my childhood playing in the same building in Lakshmi Mansions in Lahore where Manto lived for most his time in Pakistan and where his daughter still lives.
Seriously? That is pretty cool.
I’ve read most of his stuff but in English. If only they had audio books in Urdu/Hindi.
Hades mian,
So you are a constitutional expert now?
Mian try and be humble. The fact that the president can dismiss the cabinet is a problem because president is not the chief executive…hence such an action harms democracy. If the president was the chief exec, there would be no problem.
Constitutionally the chief executive is the PM under the Pakistan constitution and not the president which is why the whole 58 2b is a problem…
When Mush took over in 1999 he took the title of chief exec and kept the president for a year for the same reason. From 1999 to 2002 musharraf had two hats pres and chief exec. It is this separation that is an accepted principle which is why presidential power to dismiss the assembly is considered wrong and undemocratic.
Ravi
“Half life post 1947″
Try again maybe you can modify the statement even further… Manto did not spend 4 years in courts post Pakistan. His total court appearances would be less than 10 days.
And as for your “agreement” with hades mian…this is a case of blind leading the blind.
I wonder why you Indians act the way you do… Must be some very deep seated inferiority complex I must say.
Yasser/Ravi,
Btw, how do you define CE?
Oh mian…it doesn’t matter how ravi mian from bumblefck india or I define chief exec… It has a constitutional legal definition.
Yasser,
See, correct me if I’m wrong but what I understand of the term id the person who controls the executive. If the PM can be dismissed by the prez then we all know who’s boss and therefore who controls the executive.
However, I agree with the fact that this is not the correct way and the current system is just a perversion which, if this article is to be believed, will be set right.
Hades
//I wonder why you Indians act the way you do… Must be some very deep seated inferiority complex I must say.
yes very deep seated. we feel inferior about having a failed state like pakistan as a neighbour!!!
Ravi,
Well no need to get all cheeky…especially when you come the poverty stricken ghetto that is India.
Now think about it… How many Pakistanis do you think are trying to prove their superiority on Indian sites right now? I would say zero.
Meanwhile you are up in the middle of the night trying to prove your superiority on the basis of some imagined achievements of your country- I’d say we can all see who has the inferiority complex. Get a life loser.
Hades,
Chief Executive is that person on whose advice the president is required to act- as in sign bills etc. This is usually the first amongst the cabinet members.
Look … the executive authority flows from/vested in the head of state – in case of Britain the Queen but it is actually vested in the prime minister. Queen can remove the PM under the unwritten British constitution but she doesn’t because it is against convention.
In Pakistan’s case, it is similarly vested in the PM…and president has the authority to remove him except that there is no real convention to stop him primarily because 58 2 B was introduced under military rule.
The problem with Pakistan is that the head of state can remove the chief executive at his whim and that creates a power imbalance.
To give a corporate law example…the cabinet and CE are like BOD and CEO…
A president is equivalent not to the CEO but the chairman who doesn’t act but is a symbol of the shareholders in this case the federation.
Chief Executive is that person on whose advice the president is required to act- as in sign bills etc
Now isn’t that isn’t a very narrow definition? Anyways…
In Pakistan’s case, it is vested in the PM…and president has the power to remove him except that there is no real convention to stop him primarily because 58 2 B was introduced under military rule.
Yes, but written constitutions based on the Westminster model do have safeguards for that sort of thing. They don’t depend on convention as Britain does. Again, for example, the Indian constitution makes it clear that the President shall only dismiss Parliament on the advice of his ministers.
I still think that under the current Pak system the prez is the head of govt (and not just head of state) just on the basis of the fact that he can dismiss the govt.
Hades
Yes, all that’s tickety-boo but your analogy describes the situations as is should be, not as it is.
In the present scheme of things, the Prez is the CEO.
Hades
I am well aware that you keep arguing in circles after you’ve realized you are wrong.
Had you considered or had enough understanding of what I had written you would see that the definition I have given is too broad not too narrow.
The head of government under the Pakistani constitution is the Prime Minister… not the president. This is why presidential power to dismiss the prime minister is considered undemocratic. Do you want to go in another loop?
We are discussing where the constitution stands on this issue. If Zardari derives some other status as the head of the PPP …well then that is a different story.
Indeed that just condones presidential powers whereas I am saying that presidential powers are in contradiction to democratic norms because under the constitution the Chief Exec is the PM and to give the pres unbridled power to dismiss the PM creates a situation where head of state can infringe upon the business of the head of govt in a negative (not positive) way…
Yasser,
No, I said its too narrow because, for one its a very procedural definition and because of that it fails when applied to any other system—say a presidential system.
The head of government under the Pakistani constitution is the Prime Minister… not the president. This is why presidential power to dismiss the prime minister is considered undemocratic. Do you want to go in another loop?
Yes, please.
If the head of the govt under the present system is the PM pray tell me from where does the Prez derive this ‘power’ to dismiss the PM?
Heads of states can never dismiss heads of govt.
Hades
Yasser,
So, basically what you are saying is that the prez powers are derived from Zaradri’s own unique position (head of ruling party) and are are not legally enshrined?
Hades
In so far as presidential powers to dismiss the assembly are concerned… they are enshrined in the constitution but are 1. undemocratic and 2. not enough to establish the president as the head of government.
However Zardari has acted like the executive and that is entirely due to his position as the head of the PPP.
Now I can quote several precedents from the Supreme Court which show that wherever “president” occurs in the constitution in terms of an action other than 58 2b, premier’s advice becomes mandatory… but let us forget those precedents because I know the stock Indian answer to that even though, once the SC says something it becomes the law… however tainted the Supreme Court.
“head of states never dismiss head of gov”
Precisely the problem with 58 2 B. On the other hand if the president was the chief executive, there would be no head of gov and dismissal would not be an issue.
Anything that puts an end to this and lets people to FINALLY move on from Mush-Ifti-military-lawyers-PMLN-governor rule etc would be a big relief.
Congratulations to the lawyers if they can, indeed, pull it off. This should go in the history of Pakistan as a glorious victory – not the fact that CJ Iftikhar was reinstated (for me, he is more or less as preferable as Dogar) but the fact that the lawyers/supporters were so steadfast in their struggle. Sends out a clear msg: the people of Pakistan will no longer stay put and accept a dictatorship.
I have one question to which I have not found an answer yet.
In 1999, when Musharraf took power, there were a number of Supreme Court judges who refused to sanctify his coup under “Doctrine of Necessity”. These judges were removed by Musharraf. Other more compliant judges agreed and they stayed on. Chaudhry was one of them.
If the objective is to gain an untainted judiciary, would it not follow that the justices of 1999 be restored?
I see non-Pakistanis–read Hindu Indians–on this board making stupid remarks and commenting about political developments in Pakistan they know nothing about. What a sick obsession.
Stuka has a point – any thoughts? Why just hyper focus on CJ’s reinstatement..?
Stuka,
The answer to that is that in 2004 the parliament passed what is known as the 17th Amendment (same amendment through which article 58 (2) b giving the president the power to dismiss NA was re-introduced in the constitution) which gave ratified and indemnified all of Mush’s actions from 1999-2004… after which the judges took a fresh oath under the constitution of 1973.
Thus CJP was in 2007 the legitimate CJP under the constitution of Pakistan when he was removed and then reinstated through Supreme Court’s decision in the summer of 2007…
On Nov. 3, Mush imposed what he called “emergency”… except under constitutional emergency SC can’t be dismissed… but Mush imposed the “emergency” as the Chief of Army Staff not the President of Pakistan. On the same day CJP and his fellow justices ruled that the emergency was unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful… but Mush sent them packing and introduced a fresh PCO which sought to govern the country as closely as possible the constitution.
Before Mush reinstated the constitution … he added what is known as Article 270 AAA to the constitution and reaffirmed it as well… now herein lies the fundamental issue: law in any theory is the general command of the sovereign and the sovereign is derived from sanctioning power… if the CJP is not restored and Mush’s actions on Nov 3rd 2007 are not undone … it would mean 270 AAA becomes the part of the constitution (which is illegal anyway)….
Now the issue is not about CJP as much as to reverse the illegality of Nov 3rd… and how we would want to determine the very issue of “sovereign” and “legal force”.
PMA…
you’ve no idea. This Hades fellow sent me an email saying that I “ought to read 52 B” (58 2B which I have already explained is an undemocratic addition precisely because President is not the head of gov and has no business dismissing govts) which would lay to rest the issue of “head of state” and “head of govt”. The obsession you speak of runs deep. And it makes them act in ways that are just so damned undignified.
Todays HINDU economics
Tea Board Chairman Basudeb Banerjee told The Hindu that Pakistan’s tea imports from India in 2008 was being estimated at 7.67 million kg as compared to 5.5 million kg in 2007. Indications are that the upward trend in exports from India to its troubled neighbour, has been maintained so far this year too although official figures are likely to be available later. A target of 10 million kg has been fixed for this year. Between January and November 2008, exports to Pakistan touched 6.52 million kg valued at Rs. 48.65 crore as compared to 4.73 million kg valued at Rs. 51.30 crore in the same period in 2007.
We r just checking in to see how u like our tea,YLH
Hai lal mian… You Indians and the way you always have to try and prove an esoteric point.
Why don’t you guys get off your psychology now.
[...] Hopes were high, and intense efforts were underway for the last three days to broker the deal with the various parties urging Gilani to persuade the president. General Kayani met with the Prime Minister on Thursday to discuss the new arrangements. US special envoy Richard Holbrooke had also encouraged accomodation in talks with Zardari and Gilani while US Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson reached out to Nawaz Sharif on Wednesday. [...]
[...] Hopes were high, and intense efforts were underway for the last three days to broker the deal with the various parties urging Gilani to persuade the president. General Kayani met with the Prime Minister on Thursday to discuss the new arrangements. US special envoy Richard Holbrooke had also encouraged accomodation in talks with Zardari and Gilani while US Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson reached out to Nawaz Sharif on Wednesday. [...]
@Ravi – Here we have our friends from across the border jumping into issues they hardly knwo much about. Sadly, the more i have come across the Indians the more i have found them to be narrow minded and prejudiced. I do not rejoice at this – makes me feel pessimistic about Indo- Pak relations.
@YLH – Kudos!! Eloquent as ever..