Petition against Zardari’s immunity filed in SC
A reference has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the immunity enjoyed by President Asif Ali Zardari. Petitioner Iqbal Haider, while talking to media, said that the eligibility of the president should be judged under Article 62 and 63 of the constitution. Iqbal argued that all the cases stood…
Visit: http://www.nation.com.pk for full story
One Response to “Petition against Zardari’s immunity filed in SC”
Leave a Reply
The imbroglio after NRO decision is out to understand. Some elements are frequently lambasting Zardari after NRO as he was the author or main player in striking this law. The opponents of Zardari and democracy have got a ticket to watch and show and comment. One or the other reference has been filed every day.
There is a plethora of references against Zardari, for example a reference has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the immunity enjoyed by President Asif Zardari.. The reference says that the eligibility of the president should be judged under article 62 and 63 of the constitution. It is argued that all the cases stood restored in wake of Supreme Court’s ruling on NRO. Earlier on 23rd December 2009 same kind of reference was filed challenging Article 248 of the Constitution which gives immunity to president of Pakistan. The Communist Party of Pakistan (CPP) Chairman Jameel Ahmed filed the petition in which it was maintained that Pakistan is an Islamic country and Islamic laws don’t give immunity to any one at any level.
Some people want president Zardari to sit in the president house but they are not ready to allow Mr. Zardari to use the privileges given to him as a president. Why these people do not think that it is not PPP who has given Zardari this immunity but it is the parliament and the constitution of Pakistan which has given president of Pakistan this immunity in 1973.
Some people are putting their full energy and strength to convince the people and the Supreme Court of Pakistan that there should not be any discrimination between the president and a common man. But I want to ask these people why they do not apply their philosophy to the army and judiciary because in their case both of them are enjoying ‘more than’ immunity in their place. The immunity of Army and judiciary goes to the extent that you even cannot criticize them about their doings. But in the case of president only the accountability of president remains halted during his tenure that is just 5 years or so. But Army and judiciary are enjoying full immunity and there is no such platform of their accountability exits for their trial.
[Translate]