Double standards of SCP for dual national
By Hasan Tasleem - Feb 14th, 2013
Over the past year or so, issue of Dual Nationality has been in media’s limelight quite rather often. On a more recent note, the hearing for Dr. Tahir-Ul-Qadri’s petition in regards to the Election Commission Reconstitution which was dismissed, as Supreme Court felt that Dr. Qadri failed in providing the eligibility of his petition.
I am no legal expert, nor an expert of constitution and neither a supporter of Dr. Tahir-Ul-Qadri. But as a silent observer when I see such irregularity or behavior by an individual or state institution, it sends tingling sensation to my inner self. It seemed to be that this petition’s outcome was decided ahead of time, where as SCP did not focus on the legitimacy of the content of the petition, but rather to target an individual or his personality.
If I am correct, it is the same Supreme Court that accepted the petition of Showkat Sohail on the matter Memo-Gate Scandal, a Canadian Citizen. It is the same Supreme Court, set-up a tribunal and sent them overseas to questions Mansoor Ejaz, arguable the person-in-charge who helped plot the activity himself, Also it is the same Supreme Court that questioned MQM Chief Mr. Altaf Hussain, a Dual National as well and summoned him to appear in court.
But when a Dual National points our irregularities within the system, he is held questionable to his eligibility of filing the petition, rather than to focus on what the petition is all about. It needs no brainer to determine the concerns in regards to Election Commission, when almost all of the political parties have expressed their concerns with the current set-up.
I always heard and read that “all citizens are equal under the law”. But I guess the law did not specify, that Dual Nationals can only be held accountable if the situation provides motive or support to a party instigating in a case, rather than to an issue from which the entire nation can benefit. Dual National are obliged to full every request, every demand and every question put forth by state institutions, but they better keep their mouth taped shut, and eyes close when they see irregularities within our beloved Pakistan.
Why did Supreme Court not ask Mansoor Ijaz or Showkat Sohail, to read aloud their citizenship oath, why only Dr. Qadri? This leads be to believe, if Imran Khan or Nawaz Sharif were to submit the same identical petition, would the response have been any different? I believe that these Double Standards must immediately end in order to restore the faith of public in the statement that “all citizens are equal under the law”.
http://blogs.thenewstribe.com/blog/68619/double-standards-of-scp-for-dual-national/
Anwar replied on Thursday, February 14, 2013 03:44 PM
It's not a matter of dual nationality. If a petition is of public interest ( not personal),SC has to determine the intention whether its bonafide or melafide. As the basis of this petition was to derail the democratic process, therefore dual nationality came into discussion. Taking into consideration the past judgement passed in High Court against Dr. Tahir Ul Qadri coupled with , he had no role in Pakistan Politics since long and his actions to malign Supreme Court after verdict came against PM, therefore SC wanted to be convinced about his intention. Our election commission is working for last two years and all political parties have accepted, therefore there was no need to restart. |
Zain replied on Friday, February 15, 2013 12:41 AM
I agree with you Faisal. Dual citizenship should not be brought into this case as hundred of thousands of dual citizens have felt they have been termed as second grade citizens from a highest court of their own mother land. If they had to reject the petition they should have done it but with a relevant reason without disrepecting dual citizens. |
GREEDY QADRI replied on Friday, February 15, 2013 03:21 AM
TAHIR UL QADRI IS A GREEDY AND DOUBLE FACED PERSON. HE MUST BE PUNISHED MORE SVERELY .
THIS GREEDY WICKED MAN IS NOT REPRESENTING OVERSEES PAKSITANIS /
HE MUST BR HANGED UNDER ARTICLE 6 OF LAW |
Omil replied on Friday, February 15, 2013 10:30 AM
Naveed is perfect, if this issue not settled now would simply promote anarchy if elections done without resolving it. One should not forget that PTI is also a major stake holder and has serious reservations over it.Can someone share what's the PTI response on this decision of SC. I don't want but am forced to say looking at SC's various decisions after its famous restoration that most of its decisions have one way or another gave relief and strength to NS. I don't think it's a coincidence. Events have proved today that people of this country were largely be fooled on the name of independent judiciary during the restoration movement. |
Asim replied on Saturday, February 16, 2013 04:53 PM
Brother Naveed, under article 41 clause 2:
"A person shall not be qualified for election as President unless he is a Muslim of not less than forty-five years of age and is qualified to be elected as member of the National Assembly."
so a dual national can not be president of Pakistan ! |
Naveed Yaseen replied on Sunday, February 17, 2013 03:10 AM
Dear Asim, the matter of "qualification" of parliamentarians (including MNA's) is dealt under Article 62, which does not limit dual nationals. The members of National Assembly have some additional qualification limits by Article 51-1, but those don't limit dual national either.
The dual nationals are limited under "disqualification" in Article 63 which applies on member of parliaments but not on president, because there is no mention of disqualification criteria of president in Article 41-2 or anywhere else.
What I said, that the Article 63 does not apply to president, is view of several prominent constitution experts like S.M. Zafar and Aitzaz Ahsan.
This absence of disqualification criteria for president may apparently look like an unintended defect, but there is a valid reason. If Article 63 were applicable to president then president would become exposed to be removable by Election Commission, Supreme Court or any High Court. Since the authority to discipline these institutions was/is significantly vested in president, their ability to remove their own disciplinary authority would disturb checks & balances intended by constitution. So president, once elected, can only be removed by parliamentary impeachment under Article 47. |
A sorry Pakistani replied on Sunday, February 17, 2013 09:17 AM
Gentlemen, lets give the devil his due. I am not taking sides, but if a CJ, with questionable past and present, does some good deeds, we must appreciate them. The CJ (allegedly on the behest of the army and anti PPP forces) has taken many suo moto notices and imparted many decisions that have set new precedents in the way judgements will be passed in the future. PPP does not like them obviously but PPP has been the most corrupt government in the history of this country.
On the other hand, CJ was a PCO judge, no doubt, and the sudden outburst of conscience obviously had something to do with his being fired by Musharaf, and of course he knew what his son was upto. How can a father not know the source of income of his son, especially when he does not do any work and spends millions. Nazaria zaroorat has been the punch line of our democracy and our constitution from the beginning. Liaquat Ali Khan's decision to fly to Washington instead of Moscow, Bhutto's socialistic experimental nightmares, BB Shaheed's criminal negligence into her husband's massive corruption, Nawaz Sharif's lust for becoming Ameerul Momineen (if of course you could find any momineen among us) and Zardari's unending lust for more money (as if he wants to bribe Allah SWT into His forgiveness), all is Nazaria zaroorat.
And of course people have very short memories, and yes our nation is sleeping, dreams are more fun that facing reality, so they will keep having fun until they think that feeding their children twice a day is all they live for, and it is their responsibility, not the government's. |
