According to a news item, the most popular lawyer Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan reportedly said that the president would have protection under the “principle of sovereign immunity” and that no court could summon him. This is truly amazing. I thought all laws in the Islamic Republic were supposed to be in conformity with Islam (according to which all citizens are equal and no one is superior to the rest), so why has the president been granted immunity?
I’m reminded of the second Khalifa (Hazrat Umar, R.A.) who was openly questioned in the mosque to explain why he was wearing a robe made of a bigger cloth than was allotted to him. If an ordinary man could thus confront the ruler of a much larger country than Pakistan, why is one particular individual granted immunity from being summoned by the courts? If the president of a country can commit a crime and not be punished for it, shouldn’t all citizens be exempted from prosecution as well?
I remember Richard Nixon saying, “If the president did it, it’s not illegal”, but he had to pay dearly for his mistakes. He became the only U.S. president to resign to avoid impeachment, but in Pakistan’s case, impeachment is out of the question (since most parliamentarians are crooks). How can a citizen be proud of his country if its leaders are dishonest?
More on Chowrangi ..
NATO and its plans in Afghanistan
President of Pakistan Asif Zardari is a citizen of United States?
Asif Ali Zardari: President of Pakistan
Deciding the fate of Pakistan
Abhi Kuch Dair Baqi Hay
Evolution of Fashion in Pakistan
Decay of the Educational System
Can Muslims take nationality of America or other non-Muslim countries?
Zardari seems to be an issue of focus in the media now days. How can the media be acting so irresponsibly when there are constant suicide bomb blasts occurring in Peshawar? Either its Zardari making the headlines or the Sugar crisis, the media needs to prioritize the focus on reports. It has been noted in a survey by the Gillani Foundation that 57% of the population agrees to the fact that it has been the media which has been responsible for the political instability in the country. It can be further noted on the following link:-
http://www.gallup.com.pk/pollsshow.php?id=2009-11-13
@ James: there was a time when a man was judged by his actions. It was once unthinkable that a cheque would bounce, but it happens so often nowadays that I ignore it (although I do have the choice of going to the law, but that would mean losing the customer). In the modern world, most men don’t consider how a man made his money, they respect him and praise him if he is filthily rich. Money is power, and in Pakistan rich people are thought to be the chosen ones. The latest estimate of our president’s wealth is 4 billion dollars but I personally think it’s three times that (as the real value of property is never disclosed, to avoid paying property tax and other taxes).
@Saadia: I agree with you. It’s not just a problem for Pakistan or the US. There are some 200 sovereign nations on earth, and each of them has an individual for a head except Switzerland, which I understand has a rotating pool of seven. This “club” of bosses varies in character, and they all fall somewhere on a spectrum between patriot and parasite. Probably the best thing citizenry can do is pay close attention to these people who have our fates in their hands, and support the patriots and shame the parasites and boot them out. Sounds like you’re on a case and good luck with it.
@Shakir: Just a thought: it occurred to me during the squawk about the Pakistani contingent partying in NY that perhaps they are somewhat subject to the “keeping up with the Joneses” syndrome. Countries of earth rank each other and vie for status in the “club.” I do not grasp why a national leader would need to be filthy rich unless he is afflicted with this disorder, which would seem to be a huge distraction from his real job of running his own country. I always got my own best results when I ignored my “competition” and competed against myself. I’ve often found people who are overly status-conscious to be untrustworthy and off-putting, unless they have some special gift inseparable from their personas and are in such demand that they must distance themselves from most people to keep from being swamped with fans and hangers-on.
I don’t consider the gift for acquiring mountains of money to be particularly noble; there are too many ignoble ways to do that; what one has, another has not, and how much does one person really need, anyway?
@ James: in Pakistan, our leaders are financially corrupt. They president is a very rich man, yet he’s involved in many scams (through front men). We can’t do anything about it. I don’t think any society or religion can allow any public figure to loot the country and go scot-free.
Nobody is immune to prosecution if he or she is corrupt. Especially, he or she involves himself or herself in corruption while holding public office. My question which is the question asked by many millions Pakistanis Why some sacred cows are immune to prosecution?
Let me narrate a glaring example of corruption by a retired general of Pakistan Army who is blue eyed of dictator Musharraf, presently heading a most prestigious institution of Pakistan Civil Bureaucracy.
We all Pakistanis love our Army as an institutions, these are few individuals who bring bad name to institutions with their corruption and flouting the whole system.
Pakistan School of Public Policy (PSPP) and its auxiliary departments are training institutions where one is taught high moral standards. principles of public policy . ethical values and golden rules of good governance. Unfortunately, it is become just a lip service since then Kargil motivator Lt General (Retd) Javaid Hassan became its Rector with the courtesy of Dictator Musharraf and still continues to hold same position. At the first place presence of any Fauji in a training institute of civil bureaucracy is objectionable. But let us take it corruption part.
NPSS has become an Empire of Javaid Hassan where nobody can dare to tread. Corruption, Nepotism, Favoritism, Violation of Rules has become a story of the Day. With the help of two retired brigadiers and one Lt Col he has put whole institute hostage to his whimsical overtures.
These two Brigadiers were employed in Grade 21 / 20 were denied further extension by the Government considering their services no more essential. But as General considered them indespensible so he re-employed them on in lesser Grade and made mockery of whole system and principles of public policy.
One Lieutenant Colonel who retired from Army Medical Corps is incharge of Finance and Human Resource Management.
These three including two retired brigadiers while working in lower Grade are still working as DG Administration and Directing Staff and enjoying all the perks and benefits of higher posts. Beside there are many inductions and employments in NPSS which were made on the basis of tailored made rules.
In highest institution like NPSS such examples of highest moral and ethical corruptions require to be noticed and COAS should himself ask the government not to employ even retired general like Javaid Hassan at such posts which bring bad name to whole institution.
The names of two retired brigadiers are Mr. Shahid Kardar and Anwarul Haq while name of retired Lt Col is Najeeb.
For verification or getting other point of view one can call Kargil fame General at his number 00-92-42- 9202906 (off)
Let us first make him accountable for exemplary prosecution then ask prosecution of any politician.
Seems that you have asked THE human question of all time, or one of the most important. I think a case can be made for a “sovereign” leader, immune from law, based upon the fact that the grass-roots–meaning every workaday citizen–tends to be self-involved and self-serving, and mostly oblivious to larger affairs of state and nation. When a very large problem occurs that affects everyone, say natural disaster, bad harvest, overpopulation, invasion, plague or such, which must be dealt with quickly, professionals who keep their eyes on such matters and have prepared plans must step in and take charge. Their actions must be decisive and authoritative, and forceful, and will be seen as very high-handed by the average citizen.
Response to national emergency seems to justify a leader being “above the law” in the sense that he (or she) might have to take unusual, unprecedented liberties to solve the problem. However, I strongly suspect that national leaders do their parts to make sure that there are eternally emergencies–military ones, usually–so that they can maintain this justification. One can fairly describe human history as a never-ending train-wreck. We note that there is no national governmental policy that is not based on growth, at least no stated ones, even now when it is well known that there are limits to growth and that excessive growth leads to diminishing returns in the quality of life for average citizens.
Should a leader be sovereign? I say only in the most dire emergency. Otherwise that leader and his closest will be the only ones who live the “good” life, and all others will be slaves.
Hats off to you, Hamid, for bearding the lawyer lion yourself. I suppose he has a vested interest.
Bullseye, Tayab.
@lakhani
she became symbolic hardly a century back…………nd down the historical lane dey two were involved in much severe offenses dan dis………
just a month back nt d queen bt the PM gordon brown was under an enquiery for excessive billing he has claimed…..
nyhow in nycase i 2 endorse the notion dat how can a top office bearer b exempted from the court of justice???nd dis 2 happening while we have the tag ISLAMIC REPUBLIC on our face………..sad
@ Hamid: the British Queen is the titular head of state, but she doesn’t indulge in corruption. But if ever she’s found to be corrupt (like you-know-who), the media will force her to abdicate and one of her sons will become the King.
@shakir
a v constructive topic nd discussion I must say………nd dis is one element which has to be reviewed through out……..
nyhow dat day when aitzaz commented outside supreme court on this immunity………sumhow i threw a question dat as a lawyer hw u feel abt a clause like dis???
he gave a very gentle answer to me dat it was the british queen nd d king which always felt that courts and accountability has nuthing to do wid dem……wat can i say that the same king and d queen attitude is now in adoption here?
It is to promote injustice from top to bottom. In my opinion it should be changed and everyone should be held accountable for their actions and within the reach of justice system and our justice system requires some serious imrovements.