Archive

Posts Tagged ‘cjp’

Supreme Court’s correct decision and PPP attempt to come out as victims.

February 13, 2010 1 comment

PPP and Zardari especially have shown their incapability to run their country and hide their corruption.
In order to overshadow their weaknesses they are trying to go in a clash with institutions and other forces especially judiciary so that they can come out as victims.

The recent notification of President Zardari is also an attempt in this direction.

Supreme Court has rightly suspended the unconstitutional notification of Zardari to appoint the judges against the advice of Chief Justice.

In cases where president or governor or anyone requires consultancy means they need to consult the office whose consent is required for must. And the office being consulted needs to agree with the position otherwise the decision will not be implemented.

However in case of an advice given by the office whose consultancy is required for must, the advice needs to be implemented. It not only happens in SC CJ but also for PM advice to President, CM advice to governor and Provincial HC advice to government.

The office which needs consultancy (here presidency) cannot take the decision on their own on the matters where consultancy is required.

SC also has the duty (not only right) to interpret the wordings of the constitution. This
is not only in case of Pakistan but in most part of the world including so-called mother of
democracy, UK.

In this case which comes under article 177 the situation is same. Article says:

177. Appointment of Supreme Court Judges.
(1) The Chief Justice of Pakistan shall be appointed by the President, and each of the other Judges shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice.

(2) A person shall not be appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court unless he is a citizen of Pakistan and-

(a) has for a period of, or for periods aggregating, not less than five years been a judge of a High Court (including a High Court which existed in Pakistan at any time before the commencing day); or

(b) has for a period of, or for periods aggregating not less than fifteen years been an advocate of a High Court (including a High Court which existed in Pakistan at any time before the commencing day). “

The role of president here again is of just giving Presidential approval.
This is adapted from British system where in issues like these “Royal Assent” is required and even if it is not given due to some reason it is assumed that it is given after some given period but in this case formal approval is required.

According to the interpretation in Judges Case or Al-Jihad Case,in the appointment of the Supreme Court Chief Justice seniority principle will prevail and senior most will be made the Chief Justice (This was done to ensure judicial independence from executive discretion).
The issue currently is of new appointments in Supreme Court as Justice where the
consultation is binding on the president not the seniority principle.

Similarly in appointments of the High Court judges the consultation from CJ  is binding on the president according to article 193.

SC once again proved their independence and their will to strengthen the judiciary by stopping the PLUTOCRATS to damage the federation for their evil goals.

Delaying the appointments of judiciary in High Courts is also an attempt by government to not only undermine judiciary but also to frustrate the common man from judiciary.

Another motive is to start a seniority issue between judges to break their strength but this also has failed.

For once we need to go for across the board accountability without becoming a prey of illusions created by the players of National Security Card, Democracy Card, Shaheed Card, Ethnic Card, Sectarian or any other Card.

Anyone who wants strong Pakistan instead of few faces ruling the country cannot afford a weak judiciary.

Also, the commitment for free judiciary shown by Justice Saqib Nisar and Justice Khwaja Shareef is appreciable.

President enjoys no immunity, SC decided in 2007–>Ansar Abbasi in TheNews

January 30, 2010 Leave a comment

Source : http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=26955

Musharraf was denied immunity in CJP restoration case

By Ansar Abbasi

ISLAMABAD: The critical issue whether the president enjoys immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution was categorically and specifically decided by the Supreme Court and it was denied to former president Pervez Musharraf in the case of restoration of the then-deposed chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry.

While the short order in the case given on July 20, 2007, by a 13-member bench, headed by Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, restored the chief justice, in its detailed judgment of the same case, given just 35 days ago, no room for any ambiguity has been left.

The detailed judgment, which did not receive much legal or media attention, addressed the issue, which Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has now referred back to the Supreme Court in his speeches in the National Assembly, and gave reasons and past references to deny immunity to a sitting president, even in criminal cases as provided for in Article 248 of the Constitution.

The detailed judgment issued on Dec 24 clearly states: “…allegations of mala fide had been levelled against the person of the president by no less a person than the chief justice, no exception could be taken to implead the president as a respondent…”

Responding to objections raised in 2007 by the then-government (of Gen Musharraf), over impleading the then-president, the detailed judgment also refers to several previous judgments on this specific issue of Article 248 and cites examples where such immunities were not accepted.

The Ramday judgment refers to mala fide actions of Gen Musharraf and ruled in Para 107: “As would appear from the averments made in this petition, some of which have even been noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, the mainstay of the case of the petitioner, the chief justice of Pakistan, is that the entire exercise in question had been commenced for collateral purposes and suffered from mala fides which was sought to be established, inter alia, through the chief justice of Pakistan being summoned by the president to the Army House/President’s Camp Office; detention of the chief justice at the said office for about five hours; attempts made to secure the resignation of the chief justice under duress and through coercion; the alleged illegal detention of the wife and the children of the chief justice in their house and the alleged unconstitutional removal of the chief justice from his office and appointment of acting chief justice of Pakistan. Since such serious allegations of mala fide had been levelled against the person of the president by no less a person than the chief justice of Pakistan, no exception could be taken to implead the president as a respondent in this petition, which was in fact imperative in view of the above-mentioned precedent cases.”

Interestingly, this judgment says the president can be impleaded for his actions of illegal detention of the chief justice, his wife and children, etc. All these actions are of criminal nature, which a sitting president ordered, but the Supreme Court did not give him immunity under Article 248(2), which says no criminal proceedings can be initiated or continued against a sitting president. The Constitution does not give immunity to president or any other public office holder in civil matters.

Referring to the objection raised that Gen Pervez Musharraf, the president of Pakistan, had been impleaded in the said petition as one of the respondents, which was seen by the then government as against the provisions of Article 248(1) of the Constitution, the judgment reproduced the said Article, which reads as: “The president, a governor, the prime minister, a federal minister, a minister of state, the chief minister and a provincial minister shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions: Provided that nothing in this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Federation or a province.”

Many past judgments were also quoted by the Ramday judgment of Dec 24, 2009. It said that such an immunity clause had been examined by the Privy Council in HB Gills case (AIR 1948 Privy Council 148) and the reaction of the Privy Council to such-like protective provisions was as under: “Their Lordships, while admitting the cogency of the argument that in the circumstances prevailing in India a large measure of protection from harassing proceedings may be necessary for public officials cannot accede to the view that the relevant words have the scope that has in some cases been given to them. A public servant can only be said to act or to purport to act in the discharge of his official duty, if his act is such as to lie within the scope of his official duty. Thus, a judge neither acts nor purports to act as a judge in receiving a bribe, though the judgment which he delivers may be such an act: nor does a government medical officer acts or purport to act as a public servant in picking the pocket of a patient whom he is examining, though the examination itself may be such an act. The test may well be whether the public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim that, what he does, he does in virtue of his office.”

The judgment added: “In our jurisdiction the pleaded Article 248 came up for interpretation in Chaudhry Zahur Elahi’s case (PLD 1975 SC 383). The scope and the operational area of the said provision was so stated by this court: “…the immunity provisions must, in accordance with the accepted principles of interpretation, be construed strictly and unless persons claiming the immunity come strictly within the terms of the provisions granting the immunity, the immunity cannot be extended. The immunity is in the nature of an exception to the general rule that no one is above the law.”

The matter was further explained in these words: “Hence, since neither the Constitution nor any law can possibly authorise him to commit a criminal act or do anything which is contrary to law, the immunity cannot extend to illegal or un-constitutional acts.”

This court, the judgment said, when confronted again with the protection provisions of Article 248 in Amanullah Khan’s Case (PLD 1990 SC 1092) reiterated that the said provisions were required to be strictly construed and added in para 56 that: “If mala fide of fact was pleaded by a party then it had to decide for itself whether on the material with it, the minister has to be impleaded in spite of the protecting provisions of the Constitution; because if his act does not fall within the purview of the provision so interpreted, then he can be impleaded as a party and all objections to such impleadment dealt with in the proceedings. In the absence of the party, no finding with regard to mala fide of fact (as distinguished from mala fide of law) can be recorded, should be recorded and should have been recorded. Recourse to the principles of natural justice to overcome the prohibition contained in Article 248 of the Constitution is not permissible.”

“It was further declared: “Protection under Article 248 of the Constitution is not available to the designated functionaries if their actions suffer from mala fide of fact where the allegation against the protected functionaries is one of mala fide of fact, they have to be personally impleaded as a party to the proceedings;”

“The views of Nasim Hassan Shah J in the same case are also enlightening for the resolution of the issue in question. His views were: “Now the immunity to a minister extends only to the exercise of powers and performance of functions of his office or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions. A minister can be said to be acting in exercise of the powers and functions of his office, if his acts are such which not only lie within the scope of the powers and functions conferred on him by law but are performed bona fide and for carrying into effect the intention and purposes of the statute under which, he is acting. If on the other hand his acts are performed with mala fide intent or for a colourable purpose, such acts will not be deemed to have been performed in the lawful exercise of the powers and functions vested in him and will not, therefore, be covered by the immunity. Accordingly, where it transpires that a minister has acted illegally and abused his discretion and the illegality committed was not in the bona fide exercise of his powers and functions but on account of mala fides the immunity contained in Article 248(1) would not extend to protect such an act.”

Similar views were expressed by this court in Nawabzada Muhammad Umar Khan’s Case (1992 SCMR 2450) which were as under: “Secondly, where allegations of mala fide of fact are involved or alleged, it is necessary that the parties against whom such mala fide of fact is alleged must be impleaded as a party so that it has occasion to meet the allegation. This is notwithstanding the constitutional protection enjoyed by such functionaries under Article 248 of the Constitution vide Amanullah Khan and others Vs the Federal Government of Pakistan through secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad, and others (PLD 1990 SC 1092).”

While there are such specific rulings and judgments given by the Supreme Court itself, the latest being on December 24, 2009, a new case filed by Khalid Khwaja is again before the Supreme Court to give another judgment on the subject.

The prime minister has promised in Parliament that he would act if the SC clarified the ambiguity, although after reading the Dec 24, 2009, judgment of Justice Ramday, there is no ambiguity left, an expert said, lamenting that perhaps no one in the government had bothered to go through this detailed judgment that has squarely discussed the issue of President’s immunity.

Detailed Judgment Issued Over NRO

January 19, 2010 Leave a comment

NRO Detailed Judgment has been issued by Supreme Court of Pakistan. Previously on 16 December 2009, SC 17 member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary issued a short order which nullified the draconian law.

The 287 detailed judgment is written by CJP Ifikhar Chaudhary.

The judgment can be downloaded from:

http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/NROJudgment.pdf

For once we need to go for across the board accountability without becoming a prey of illusions created by the players of National Security Card, Democracy Card, Shaheed Card, Ethnic Card, Sectarian or any other Card.

————————————————————————————————————————

SC issues detailed Judgment in NRO case

Source: http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94497&Itemid=2

ISLAMABAD, Jan 19 (APP): Supreme Court of Pakistan on Tuesday issued a detailed judgement in National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) case.The Supreme Court issued detailed judgment in Constitution Petitions numbers 76 to 80 of 2007, Constitution Petition 59 of 2009 (on appeal from the order dated 15-01-2009 passed by High Court of Sindh at Karachi in Constitution Petition No. 355 of 2008) and HRC Nos.
14328-P to 14331-P and 15082-P of 2009 regarding the NRO.
The petitions were heard by 17-Member Larger Bench headed by Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice of Pakistan and consisting of other Judges namely Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal, Mr.  Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Mr. Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan, Mr. Justice Tassadduq Hussain Jillani, Mr. Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk, Mr. Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, Mr. Justice Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, Mr. Justice Muhammad Sair Ali, Mr. Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, Mr. Justice S. Khawaja, Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Mr. Justice Khilji Arif Hussain, Mr.Justice Rahmat Husain Jafferi, Mr. Justice Tariq Parvez and Mr. Justice Ghulam Rabbani.
The Judgment has been authored by the Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice of Pakistan. The judgment was circulated to all Judges of the Bench, signed by Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday on 12-01-2010.
It has been signed by all remaining Judges of the Bench.  The judgment has unanimously been signed by all the Judges and having signed detailed judgment the three Judges namely Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Mr. Justice Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Mr. Justice Jawwad S. Khwaja have also added supporting notes.

We need to go for across the board accountability without becoming a prey of illusions

December 23, 2009 1 comment

After the remarkable of 17 member honorable bench of Supreme Court of Pakistan. Some players of democracy card join by some opportunists are playing Democracy Card and Ethnic Card.

NRO case was in pending before emergency SC just gave a ruling on that . Most of the criticism is based on speculation and this is being done either deliberately or due to ignorance of the facts.

Some points to think for people who are due to ignorance falling into this propaganda:

-Yes,Musharraf needs to be trialed but who is going to invoke article 6. SC has provided solid grounds for that in 31st July 2009 judgment.

-SC has now called for the list of loan-settlements beneficiaries from banks and it will involve all.

-Karachi and Lahore land mafia cases are being opened.

-Recently Karachi City Government’s acres of land is taken back from Army control by SC.

-PPP has a great chance to bring the khakis to justice as well if they come out of the deals they have made.

-Missing persons case is reopened including Dr. Aafia case and the delay is being done by agencies and so called democratic government.

-Bugti case has been registered and in the courts.

And their numerous other good things which are happening .

Establishment is playing games and they will not stop this but it doesn’t mean we start falling into their trap.

Only thing which will stop them for another MERAI AZIZ HAM WATNON or something similar (which is being planned) is a strong judiciary and a good way to keep judiciary out the equation is to destroy its reputation.

Weaknesses are there and if any one has a problem with any judgment then why don’t they challenge it in the court or at least they should have defended it properly in the court if the whole drama is for NRO .

The criticism over creating a team of judges to supervise accountability cases is baseless as their are examples of similar for terrorism cases but no one criticize that. It’s the job of superior judiciary to see what is happening in lower courts. Another thing it will do is to ensure the proper trial without any delays like it has been the practice which was also criticized by many.

The other thing which is being propagated is why only Swiss cases are opened?

This is not the true picture Swiss cases were especially mentioned because it involves international courts otherwise the judgment says to open all the cases.

We need to slowly move towards a system of social-economic justice without losing our track.

These plutocrats (not democrats) are playing democracy card and ethnic card like khakis play national security card.

For once we need to go for across the board accountability without becoming a prey of illusions created by the players of National Security Card, Democracy Card, Shaheed Card, Ethnic Card, Sectarian or any other Card.

The recent developments on judicial front give another message of alert to the civil society of Pakistan.

October 29, 2009 Leave a comment

The recent developments on judicial front give another message of alert to the
civil society of Pakistan.

Recent verbal assaults on Supreme Court of Pakistan CJP Iftikhar Chaudhary
and  by PPPP lead by Latif Khosa, pro-Musharraf groups and Former Justice
Abdul Hameed Doggar (Musharraf’s PCO CJ of Doggar-Musharraf Court) are a signal that
current government,their bought analyst and other allies have never accepted the
reinstatement of judiciary on 16th March 2009 as a result of  real consistent,honest and
determined struggle by lawyers,civil society and political parties like PTI,JI and other APDM parties.

The recent campaign by PPPP and allies against the judiciary seems to pressurize the judiciary
on the issues of NRO, Suo-motto taken against  corruption and government supported land mafias and cartels.

The forces of status quo should know that if they tried to play another dirty game, people
will take them on with bare nuckles.

March for Justice and Freedom

The nation has been fighting for more than a year for the noble cause of restoration of judiciary, for the cause of justice and rule of law.

The movement which started with a ‘NO’ to the dictator by the honorable CJ of Pakistan Iftikhar Chaudhary has now seems to be in the crucial stages and I also hope that it’s in the final stages to the path of success.

Though the nation was fighting for the cause, giving lives and facing the brutality of government institutions some of our ‘leaders’ were busy in making deals outside the country, making decisions regarding the future of our country, taking dictations from imperialist powers on how to run the country and who should run the affairs of the state.

The movement would have achieved its goal immediately after the 18 Feb elections but it didn’t because the lust of power and greed of our elected representatives who on the foreign dictation are delaying the issue, it seems they don’t care what the people of Pakistan want, what is the need of time for the nation, where we have to take our future as a nation, what are our national objectives, how to safeguard the national integrity and honor, how to improve the lives of our people, how to get rid of the dictatorship and above all how to give confidence to the nation by respecting there mandate to restore the independent judiciary of 2nd November 2007 BUT they are busy in getting assurances from the Americans for the protection of their status as ‘rulers of Pakistan’(or in-fact loyal servants of the USA).

When ever there is a chance of restoration of judiciary we see Americans arriving in Islamabad to meet our so called democratic leadership and then we see hypocritical statements by Mr. Zardari

such as:”We want to change the system it’s not just about the restoration of few judges” or ”Murree declaration was just a political statement “…

Now he has said,”We are ready to face the lawyers’ movement”.

The reason why our American ‘masters’ don’t want their slaves to have an independent judiciary is that they  want to protect their best asset in the country (the dictator who served them more than he served his nation) and cannot afford to lose him before 2008 presidential elections in USA because if CJP Iftikhar gets restored then it means a farewell to Musharraf and his anti-Pakistan policies and it will be serious set back for the Republican party in the elections who are banking on Musharraf to give them a breakthrough in our mountains and so they again will be able to use the same old fake war against terrorism in their elections.

Americans are very clever they always have a backup plan and that plan is now evident in the shape of PPP lead by Zardari and well assisted by people like Rehman Malik,Hussain Haqqani and the same old Mehmood Ali Durrani (former Pakistani ambassador and currently working as national security advisor to the PM) under the influence of NRO and under the umbrella of Dogar Lead judiciary .

Now we have to be really alert in this situation we not only have to protect our judiciary but also to safeguard our freedom, we have to cry out loud that we reject any foreign interference in our national affairs, we don’t accept any involvement of USA in our judicial issue, we are a nuclear power and a free country we know how to take it on the path of success.

I appeal to the whole nation to think as sincere Pakistanis and join the long from Multan to Islamabad for the cause of Justice and Freedom.

LONG LIVE PAKISTAN!

GO MUSHARRAF GO!

 

Justice denied to 529 Missing Persons of Pakistan–>An open letter by Mrs. Amina Masood to General Kiyani

March 17, 2008 3 comments

The following email was sent to General Kayani’s son so that he could forward it to his father.

This is a follow up on the Open Letter to General Kayani by Mrs. Amina Masood Janjua, from Defence of Human Rights asking for an official statement on the missing people with their charges and tried before the independent pre-Nov 3rd Judiciary. The ultimatum was 15th March, which has passed, and now cases for release of these people will be registered in international courts since Pakistan is unable to provide them justice.

To journalists and bloggers: While I understand the news piece may have some difficulty in getting published, please try your best to spread the word for the innocent missing people and their affected family members. This is the least we can do to condemn this heinous crime of the current regime.

In Solidarity,
Ryzwan Ullah Shaikh

 Email message from Mrs. Amina Masoor (From Emergency mailing list)

——————————————————————–

From: Amina Masood
Date: Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 1:12 AM
Subject: Justice denied to 529 Missing Persons of Pakistan
To:
Dear Sarosh, AOA  Please forward it to your respectable father because there is other way I can access him.I will be truly greatful to you. You may be or may be not aware of the

 most tortureing and painful issue of our Nation , It is the fundamental human rights concern

 of those honorable citizens of Pakistan who have been picked up by our agencies ,later on

 either sold to USA or Rienditioned to unknown locations held by CIA detentions.Few lucky

ones are with our own agencies ,they either die within the custody not able to bear the

torture or being released when they are mentally collpsed and good for nothing.Their

numbers with me are 529 today,but International Human rights groups say they are thousands more.Here is a chance for you to prove you care for you poor aggrieved Nation.  Please play your role in this hour of need and turmoil for your Pakistani bretheren.  Warm regards  

Amina Masood Janjua

————————————————

Open Letter to Pakistan Chief of Army Staff Gen. Kayani

The International Campaign to Restore Democracy in Pakistan (crdpnow.org) and partnering organizations demand that Pakistan Chief of Army Staff Gen. Kayani submit a list of all the held detainees kept illegally by the intelligence and military forces under his jurisdiction.  A majority of Pakistan’s judiciary was dismissed on November 3rd when President Musharraf imposed martial law in the guise of “emergency.” On November 13th, Pakistan’s Supreme Court was due to hear the cases of 485 victims of enforced disappearance over the past six years. Many of these had returned with horror stories from detainment centers around the world, including the one in Guantanamo Bay. The campaign demands the release of all those who are innocent and so that their missing status can be changed and family contact can be established. The families of victims of enforced disappearances demand that the COAS’s office issue a list of the names and charges of all Pakistanis held under extrajudicial detainment on account of actions taken by the army and intelligence forces under his command. In the weeks before March 15th, the deadline announced for the release of the names and charges of all detainees, this joint effort by Defense of Human Rights (DHR) and the International Campaign to Restore Democracy in Pakistan (CRDP) will investigate the evidence against all individuals associated with the government of Pakistan who may have authorized and carried out these abductions.  The campaign will also consult with its partners in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Pakistan to develop a strategy to take immediate legal action against all parties responsible for these disappearances if no response is received from General Kayani’s office by March 15th. The Defense of Human Rights welcomes the campaign’s statement. Since September, 2001, thousands of valuable citizens are picked and kept in illegal detention where they are being tortured and interrogated, beyond the pale of the Rule of Law.  Defense of Human Rights invites General Kayani to bring all such detainees to justice, release them all and submit a list of names of all those which are kept with Army or its Intelligence Agencies. We demand that those accused should be tried in open Courts, let their families contact them and have legal aid of their choice according to rule of Law. The Army Act Amendment implemented retroactively to justify illegal activities of intelligence agencies and try civilians in Army Courts will not be acceptable. In the absence of any acceptable response from your office before the proposed deadline of March 15th, 2008 the families of the victims of enforced disappearance have pledged to observe the following course of action: 

  1. We will launch our struggle abroad where 520 cases of Enforced disappearances would be refiled for Justice.
  1. In the absence of an independent judiciary prepared to hear our cases,” the Defence of Human Rights will seek justice in international tribunals of justice.
  2. We will mobilize students to spearhead a Pakistan-wide campaign on behalf of the victims.
  3. The families of victims will travel all over Pakistan in all the major cities and launch a massive series of protests demonstrations.

 Amina Masood JanjuaAnchor PersonDefence of Human RightsCell: 0301-5240550

Office No: 051-5511686

Note:The letter above refers to the case which became the main cause of differences between the Musharraf administration and the Supreme Court of Pakistan(which took notice of the missing persons situation and was trying to give them justice).

Aitzaz Ahsan to lead rally on 13 March 2008 —>Black Flag Week Updates

(From Emergency Mailing List) 

Nationwide: Complete boycott of ALL courts on Thursday
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Lahore: Car Rally on the 13th from Lahore to Gujranwala at 8:30 am. This will leave from 5 zaman park lahore. Aitzaz Ahsan will lead this rally. All those wanting to attend this event send a confirmation to: info@aaa-law.net
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Islamabad: 4:00pm

 ISB: Black Flag Demo at F-8 Markaz
When    Thu, Mar 13, 4pm – 6pm
Where    F-8 Markaz Islamabad

——————————————————————————————————————————————-
Karachi: 10:30 am


 KHI:Bushra Aitzaz at KBA & Rally
When:  10:30am – 11:30am
Where:  Karachi Bar

Lawyers continue there boycott of courts–>The news

The News: 

KARACHI: The spate of boycotts of all the courts in the five districts and observing token hunger strike in a row for the fifth day here continued.

Today is the fourth day of lawyers’ black flag week, when the members of Sindh High Court Bar, Karachi Bar and Malir Bar boycotted the courts for one hour and stayed away from the proceedings. Token hunger strike camps were also set up at the three Bars. Tomorrow Thursday, the courts will be boycotted totally and the lawyers would not appear in the courts, while a joint General Body meeting would be held at Karachi Bar. Later, the lawyers would bring out a rally from the KBA office to KPC, which would be attended by the lawyers, civil society representatives and members of political parties.

FAISALABAD: Lawyers in Faisalabad observed strike in courts on the fourth day of the black flag week on Wednesday.

Lawyers boycotted the court proceedings after 11:00 am and held a rally with black-flags that passed through major roads of the city.

President district bar Nasir Mahmood Goraya headed the rally. The participants of the rally vowed that they would continue their struggle till the freedom of the judiciary

Schedule for the black flag week on blackflagweek.blogpost

you can know the schedule of black flag week from the blog address below:

http://blackflagweek.blogspot.com/

from the google calendar application.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 43 other followers