Tag: judicary

  • Speeches against the army and judiciary will not be allowed: Speaker Ayaz Sadiq

    Speeches against the army and judiciary will not be allowed: Speaker Ayaz Sadiq

    Speaker of the National Assembly Ayaz Sadiq said on Friday, “Pakistan’s constitution declares that there can be no talk against the armed forces and the judiciary; therefore, speeches against the army and the judiciary will be stopped.”

    In the past and the present, both the opposition and the government benches have discussed diverse topics, including the country’s institutions.

    Ayaz Sadiq said in an informal conversation with the Parliamentary Reporters Association (PRA) yesterday: ‘I am not talking about retired judiciary members. I am talking about the present service that we cannot talk by taking their name in this way. Speeches against the judiciary and the army will not be aired; we will cut them. We give maximum time to the opposition on our website but will cut such speeches.”

    On the topic of the recent failed attempt by the coalition government to pass the constitutional amendments, the speaker expressed ignorance over the details of the draft.

    He also stated that law enforcement agencies have no role in postponing the sessions of parliament even though, in the past, that was true.

    “In the past, we were told that the NAB Chairman could not be called into the parliament, and the session of NA used to be cancelled,” revealed Sadiq.

  • Human Rights Minister Riaz Pirzada raises voice for Ahmadis

    Human Rights Minister Riaz Pirzada raises voice for Ahmadis

    Human Rights Minister Riaz Pirzada stressed the need for empowerment of the Parliament with the focus of performing its role as per the real spirit of the constitution and take cognizance for resolving the issues of the people and protecting their rights.

    “I will say it openly, neither the judiciary nor military institutions have been able to protect us. Our heart bleeds for the bloodshed happening in Balochistan, or what happened in FATA,” said Pirzada.

    “Ahmadi community is being stabbed with knives in broad day light. Their homes, mosques and places of worship are being destroyed,” said the minister.

    He said that rather than raising a fuss over petty issues, the interests of the country should be protected.

    In a thinly veiled reference to Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Imran Khan, the minister said that a person had contested elections on multiple seats and was involved in threatening institutions and people.

    A huge amount had been spent on these elections for political gains which was really painful, he stressed.

    The minister said that Parliament must protect the interests of the country because it had the real representation of the nation.

  • Imran Khan to be indicted on Sept 22, response deemed ‘unsatisfactory’ by court

    Imran Khan to be indicted on Sept 22, response deemed ‘unsatisfactory’ by court

    The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday decided to indict Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan on September 22 after he failed to submit an unconditional apology in contempt of court proceedings against him for passing controversial remarks against Additional District and Sessions Judge Zeba Chaudhry.

    “Imran Khan’s response was unsatisfactory”. said IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah, who is heading a five-member bench — comprising Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangir, and Justice Babar Sattar — that heard the case.

    Justice Athar Minal­lah observed that Khan’s replies to the court’s show-cause notice appeared to be “Justifying contempt of the judiciary” and showed “No remorse or regret”.

    Justice Minallah went on to ask why the judges of the lower courts were considered different to those of higher courts. “You are justifying contempt of court which means that you have no remorse or regret,” the judge observed.

    Expressing his disappointment in the response given by Khan to the court, which was the second of its kind, the court asked: “Even after the court’s input on the matter, this is the response submitted?”

    “It seems you want to fight this case […] and you have no realisation that the case against you is extremely seriously,” noted Justice Minallah.

    Declaring subordinate judiciary a ‘red line’, IHC CJ Minallah warned the PTI chairman that threatening a district judge is a more serious offence than a Supreme Court justice.

    Before appearing for the hearing, the PTI chairman told journalists that he would become “more dangerous” if the government decides to send him behind bars.

    “They have been trying to [put me in jail for long now]. I will be more dangerous if they send me to jail,” Khan said to media, confidently smiling ahead of the hearing.

    Hours before the proceeding, Khan filed a new plea at the high court. He argued that the high court cannot exercise suo moto jurisdiction as per the Constitution. The arguments on the inadmissibility of the contempt case should be kept on record.

    “The written arguments will also be explained in the oral arguments during the course of the proceedings,” read the plea.

    A day earlier to the proceedings, Khan submitted a fresh response to the contempt of court case, in which in he expressed deep regret for his words.