|
|
#1
07-29-2017, 02:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
PTI lawyer contradicts himself on articles 62, 63
A court always decides cases on the basis of the arguments forwarded by the counsels of opposite parties and the evidence presented. A counsel taking a position on a specific question of law can’t change his position within few days on the same question. Naeem Bokari’s basic argument is that ** parliamentarian can be disqualified using Article 62 & 63 of the Constitution in the jurisdiction of Article 184(3). During July 25 hearing, Naeem Bokhari, while concluding his arguments, **t only argued this but also referred to the points made by ho**urable Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and ho**urable Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed in April 20 judgement in Panama case who pressed that use of articles 62 and 63 while exercising jurisdiction of 184(3) will be unfair. Naeem Bokhari, while representing PTI chief Imran Khan and trying to save him from the disqualification, referred to Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed’s **te that Article 62(1)(f) could **t be allowed to be used as a tool for political engineering by the Supreme Court, **r should it arrogate to itself the power to vet candidates on moral grounds. “Under our constitutional dispensation, Pakistan is to be governed by the representatives chosen by the people and **t chosen by any institution or a few individuals,” Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed had written in his **te in the April 20 Panama judgement. Bokhari also relied on the declaration made by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan in the majority judgement of April 20 that the court did **t feel inclined to arrogate to itself a power or exercise a jurisdiction which had **t been conferred on it by any act of Parliament or even by Article 184(3) of the Constitution, which deals with the enforcement of fundamental rights. Naeem Bokhari was arguing before a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, which had taken up a petition filed by PML-N’s Hanif Abbasi. The petition seeks disqualification of Imran Khan and PTI secretary general Jahangir Tareen for **n-disclosure of assets, existence of their offshore companies and belonging to a foreign-aided party. It’s **t only Naeem Bokhari who believes this and argued in the court but even PTI chief Imran Khan considers articles 62 and 63 **n-implementable articles of the Constitution. In a statement, the PTI chief had said that only angles can fulfil requirements of articles 62 & 63 but human beings can**t fulfil requirements of these two articles. Everyone in the assembly can be targeted by using articles 62 & 63. In yet a**ther interview, Imran Khan said it is ridiculous to invoke articles 62 & 63. He said that even religious parties who support this never invoked these two articles. Imran Khan had added that if Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) will ever use articles 62 & 63, it will discredit itself. A**ther top lawyer, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan while commenting on articles 62 and 63 had stated that even father of nation, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah would **t have succeeded in fulfilling the requirements of articles 62 & 63. أكثر... ??????? ??????: PTI lawyer contradicts himself on articles 62, 63 || ??????: ahlam1399 || ??????: اسم منتداك
|
 |
|
|
العرض العادي
