Pakistan Supreme Court disqualifies Prime Minister Gilani
19 Jun 2012
''Yousuf Raza Gilani has become disqualified from being member of the parliament,'' announced chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who presided over a three-judge bench. ''He has also ceased to be the prime minister of Pakistan with effect from April 26 and the office of the prime minister shall be deemed to be vacant accordingly.''
The court asked the Election Commission to issue a notification disqualifying Gilani's membership of Parliament, and also directed president Zardari ''to take necessary steps under the constitution to ensure continuation of democratic process through parliamentary system of government in the country.''
The Supreme Court had on 26 April convicted Gilani of contempt for refusing to ask the Swiss government to re-open a probe into a multi-million-dollar scam involving President Zardari. Gilani, however, defied the apex court and asserted that only parliament could remove him from office.
Opposition leaders including Nawaz Sharif, the former prime minister, and Imran Khan, demanded Gilani's resignation from parliament, as under the Pakistani constitution, anyone convicted of defaming or ridiculing the judiciary is barred from being an MP.
But last month, Fehmida Mirza, the speaker of the National Assembly, ruled that conviction for contempt did not mean disqualification under the constitution. The Pakistan Muslim League (N) and the Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf, along with a few others then filed a plea in the Supreme Court, challenging the speaker's ruling.
The Supreme Court witnessed a battle of words between the judges and attorney general Irfan Qadir, representing the speaker. Qadir said only parliament had the right to disqualify Gilani, who was not answerable to the court.
Decrying the earlier Supreme Court verdict in the contempt case against Gilani, Qadir said the judges appeared to be keen on disqualifying him rather than deciding whether he was guilty of contempt or not. He warned that if the court decided against the speaker's ruling, it could cause a conflict between two institutions.
The chief justice told the attorney general that the court respected parliament; however, he maintained that parliament should do its job, while the court would its job. It also reprimanded the attorney general for appearing to defend a party, instead of helping the court.