15 responses so far ↓

• 1 Moeen Salahuddin // Apr 8, 2008 at 3:56 pm

  The president should appoint the judges recommended by the parliament through its relevant committee and the prime Minister
  The Charter of Democracy gives us the correct method of doing this. The intelligence agencies should be brought under the control of the parliament before they can be relied upon.
  “For this the government’s first priority should be to establish “Democratic control of the Intelligence Services” of Pakistan. It is of foremost importance that objectives and procedures of information gathering must function within the parameters of the law.
  The parliamentary Commission on Supervision of Intelligence Services and Activities must be established if it does not already exist. The commission should:
  1. Formulate and update state Intelligence Doctrine
  2. Debate and establish its budget
  3. Formulate Operative guidelines of Intelligence Services.

  We can perhaps establish an Inspector General of Intelligence Affairs as has been suggested by an international organization in a study conducted for another country.”
  Read the rest on this in Open letter to the Parliament in wspforum.com

• 2 Alfaz // Apr 9, 2008 at 3:41 pm

  the point is that the judges should not be elected/selected by parliament or any one of the government body, for its essence it should be free from all influences, democratically elected parliment or otherwise will always see who is in favour of them, if there is something they want to change; change the law not the judges.

  Judges do not make decision based their free will they make decision according to the verdict and the LAW. though if the Intelligence agencies think a person is off ill-character (or otherwise) they can present their case in the court to ban him being a judge whether is for small court in naushera or is a candidate for Chief Justice of Supreme Court

  Only the Judges (panel of judges)can be responsible for appointment of other judges

• 3 Kabool // Apr 11, 2008 at 5:03 pm

  And who will appoint this judges panel. Mr Alfaz is right that the judges should be impartial and honest but I also agree with Mr Salahuddin. Parliament is the institution through which people exercize their sovereignty. This is the only body that can appoint impartial judges through comittees which consist of all the parties in the parliament.

• 4 Alfaz // Apr 12, 2008 at 10:10 am

  The panel of judges should be the top judges of the country by post. The parliament can argue with the appointment of a judge if they think someone is corrupt, but a formal case should be put forward; that should be but before the court

  if parliaments gets the authority they will appoint their friends for favors. The whole idea of free judiciary gets diluted

• 5 Kabool // Apr 12, 2008 at 8:03 pm

  Mr. Alfaz
  Maybe. What we want is that the judiciary should work under the law and not as an agent of a redundant establishment working for a syndicate of vested interests. I agree with you that the parliamentarians can also be influenced but so can be the judges. They have been appointing sons and nephews and sons in law when they had influence. Most judges in the higher judiciary have been appointed through personal contacts or for political comfort and they have been appointed through the judiciary. The present Supreme Court is the product of one individual’s wishes and is only likely to appoint judges who are PCO friendly. At least the parliament is a transparent body and an individual’s influence is less likely to succeed here. Also Judiciary and the bar are part of the selecting procedure in the Charter of Democracy.
  The problem with the appointment by a party in power is more of ideological bent of the appointments rather than personal friendship. But if the committee consists of all the major parties this problem is solved
  So my friend no difference in our views.

• 6 Alfaz // Apr 14, 2008 at 11:35 am

  Thats why I say Judiciary should be independent of parliament..

  Daily Times - Monday, April 14, 2008

  Sindh cabinet withdraws all Dec 27 riot cases

  KARACHI: The Sindh Cabinet on Sunday decided to withdraw all terrorism cases registered against citizens following riots that erupted after the assassination of former premier Benazir Bhutto on December 27, 2007.

  Sindh Information Minister Shazia Marri told reporters after the cabinet’s first meeting that the focus of the meeting was to receive suggestions and proposals from members.

  The cabinet decided to review all decisions taken by the interim government and ordered the departments concerned to report on them.

  Marri said that the cabinet had also decided to initiate a high-level inquiry of the April 9 violence. “We have decided to punish all culprits regardless of their political affiliations,” she added. “The cabinet is also mulling to withdraw Rangers from educational institutions,” she said.

  Marri said dialogue between the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), to discuss the inclusion of the latter into the cabinet, was continuing.

  The cabinet also decided to recruit 40,000 people, Online reported. amar guriro/online

  http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Si…earch&meta=

• 7 Kabool // Apr 15, 2008 at 12:01 pm

  Yes sir anIndependent judiciary should appoint judges but how do you make a judiciary established by the British and subsequently developed out of that system independent. A judiciary that is a barrier to a free democratic society. A judiciary that is status orientated , a judiciary that is wrapped in a PCO.

  We should have a maleable judiciary under a strong parliamentary system. The laws and rights of the people are protected by the government and that is democracy. The judiciary helps the government do this job. On there own the judges cannot do anything as you have seen in our recent history. Justice Munir has been wrongly reviled. He was only stating reality that a Supreme Court cannot do anything about a military takeover. Had he given an adverse judgment he and his court would have been sent packing. Political struggles and political movements lead by intelligent leaders can bring democracy which than establishes justice and fairplay and that too in a worldly and not heavenly way.
  Another way is that judges should be selected by an examnination on merit and than approved by the peers and than scanned by the parliament which should also have access to the intelligence reports. The judges can also be appointed solely from the judicial service. Promoted from District and session judges as they come fully trained as judges into superior courts. This removes a lot of heartburning amongst the lawyers who are convinced that that elevation to high court is only a method of rewarding favourites in the lawyers community.

  Isnt this Marri girl amazing. Go get em girl and good luck

• 8 Kabool // Apr 15, 2008 at 12:23 pm

  Sorry i missed your point about the Sindh Assembly and Shazia Marri. Administrative decisions to settle problems created by social and political upheavals should be seen in that light. What is the purpose of burdening courts and the system on such a scale. This is an administartive problem. An inquiry to determine who was behind the riots or its causes is the correct answer

• 9 Moeen Salahuddin // Apr 15, 2008 at 12:40 pm

  Mr. Kabool

  Did you say a maleable judiciary. I am sure you meant something else. Please clarify.

• 10 Alfaz // Apr 16, 2008 at 3:58 pm

  My only comments was that they don’t have the right to withdrew cases against people involve in riots on 27 December.

  Those ‘people’ were involve in rapes (government conceal those rape incident to protect their a$$), killing, property damage, banks/shop robbery (hell they took the whole ATM machine); who gave them the right to do this.. why didn’t the police force retaliated. where the hell were the politicians when the city went into flames. Those people should be dealt individually not collectively, political affiliations should not be taken underconsideration

  Judges should have no heart for anybody they should be neutral whether against government or opposition and the citizen. Their objective is to gave their verdict according to the law. If politicians want to intervene they should pass a Law.

  I am not proposing a way to appoint Judges; my point is that they should be neutral. The only way they can be neutral if they are appoint on merit not friendship

• 11 Kabool // Apr 18, 2008 at 12:26 pm

  The more important point is that the Government should be a government of the people by the people and for the people. everything else will fall in place. The parliament my friend, the parliament, and no other institution can provide the solutions.
  Sorry i did not mean pliant what i meant was a judiciary which is not a hurdle to the parliament in its desire to make new laws for the good of its citizenry and a judiciary which does not give protection to the enemies of the parliament.

• 12 Alfaz // Apr 21, 2008 at 12:05 pm

  This way you are putting the parliament over judiciary, so that non of the elected members are prosecuted what ever they .. this is the mindset that destroying us..

  ‘no body should be above the law.’

• 13 MMS // May 6, 2008 at 5:47 pm

  Putting the parliament above judiciary in legislation and in making law. This does not protect an individual parliamentarian from any criminal act. Yes Nobody should be above the law but only the parliament makes laws and the judiciary should not obstruct the parliament in this.

• 14 Alfaz // May 6, 2008 at 10:27 pm

  exactly, the parliment should have the power to make laws not to remove or hire judges. The parliamentarians (the persons) should not be above the law. however combine they can make laws.

  judiciary job is to give jurisdiction according to the law which the parliament makes. that way if zardari comes in as ppp leader all cases against him should not be withdrawn

• 15 MMS // May 7, 2008 at 11:04 am

  The Zardari/Benezir cases issue is another matter. No body will disagree with you that the cases should have been decided by the judiciary but they did not decide in ten or eleven years. NRO does not exonerate the judiciary but only shows the charachter of judiciary. Judiciary was a tool of the establishment to paralyse the leadership and create its bargaining position vis a vis the accused politicians. Wether there was what is in the eyes of ordinary people like you and me corruption was not the concern of the establishment and the judiciary.
  “Justice delayed is justice denied” Delay starts if the issue is not decided within a reasonable time. In this case the reasonable time was six months at the most because a very important political leader and his political career was at stake. After that the prosecution had to be qualified as malicious.
  But back to your point of independent judiciary’ the parliament has to create an independent judiciary and this is not done by appealing and pleading to the existing judges to become independent.

Leave a Comment