Posts Tagged ‘18th Amendment’

Ansar Abbasi vs. Ansar Abbasi on 18th Amendment

Saturday, October 23rd, 2010

Ansar AbbasiThere is a famous saying that no man has a good enough memory to be a perfect liar. Ansar Abbasi could never be a good liar because his memory is so short that he cannot remember even what he has claimed the day before. Within the past two days, Abbasi’s statements in his columns about the SC verdict on 18th Amendment come into direct contradiction.

Yesterday, in a bit of irony that did not go unnoticed by many, Ansar Abbasi claimed that the government was unhappy with the SC verdict because they were hoping to cause a conflict between the government and judiciary.

The otherwise aggressive Presidency, whose men unleashed unending scathing attacks on the judiciary following the apex court’s NRO decision, has gone on the backfoot as the Supreme Court’s latest decision has won more sympathisers for the judiciary, even within the government and in the Presidency.

According to a credible source, a president’s top aide and federal minister, whose advice really matters a lot in the Presidency’s decisions, did not show any appreciation after getting the details of the interim order. The source said that the minister wore a sullen face as soon as he got to know as to what the apex court had ruled.

The source said that the negative reaction of such grim faces was expected to be reflected discreetly through the media. “Some panic phone calls have already been made to certain friends in the media to encourage media persons to pick up holes in the judgment,” the source said.

In only 24 hours, Ansar Abbasi must have forgotten his talking points, though, because his column for today makes the opposite claim.

Sardar Latif Khosa, a former cabinet member and one of the legal aides of the president, has already welcomed the SC decision, terming it as well considered and well thought-out. He added that the SC order suggested the best way to deal with the issues that were brought before the judiciary. Yet another presidential aide and President Zardari’s political aide Faisal Raza Abidi had also termed the SC order as “excellent” and “judicious”.

Generally, the PPP legislators and even the government representatives are excited about the decision as it has successfully averted the much-feared confrontation between the judiciary and parliament.

So how does such an experienced journalist as Ansar Abbasi make such an error? Actually, he gives himself away today. Here is what Ansar Abbasi explains:

There are fears amidst political and journalistic circles that the Presidency and its top legal mind and Law Minister Babar Awan have some reservations about the Supreme Court’s interim order because of which they are not coming up with their response.

It is alleged that some of the presidential aides are instead encouraging their friends in the media to pick up holes in the SC’s interim order and raise the question if it interferes in the legislature’s domain.

Whether he intended to or not, Ansar Abbasi has exposed himself and too many of his media colleagues, though they may be unnamed here. There is no evidence that the government is trying to cause a conflict with the judiciary, and there is no evidence that the government or the President himself is unhappy with the verdict. Actually, this is all only the gossip among political and media elites.

Recent events have already suggested that there are some media elements fueling the executive-judiciary tensions. Ansar Abbasi has just given more evidence. It is time for the media to stop playing games and reporting their office gossips. Please, stick to the facts.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Jang, The News | 2 Comments »

Asif Ezdi's Legal Troubles

Monday, May 3rd, 2010

Asif EzdiMr. Asif Ezdi, a former ambassador to Germany, has some pretty serious legal troubles. Mostly, troubles are understanding how laws work in a constitutional democracy. Last week we wrote about how Ezdi was propagating the latest conspiracy theory in the media about Zardari expanding his powers by signing the 18th Amendment. Today, Mr. Asif is back misrepresenting the debate about judicial review.

In his column for today’s issue of The News, Mr. Asif Ezdi repeats several misleading and, at times, contradictory talking points while he engages in some partisan name-calling. He begins his column by referring to PML-N as “hoodlums” who have issued a “threat” to the judiciary. This is both uncalled for and unprofessional. Even if he does not support PML-N, Mr. Ezdi should take note that this is the second largest political party which holds 97 seats in parliament. As such, PML-N is supported by a large number of Pakistanis. Just because Mr. Ezdi does not agree with someone, it does not make them hoodlums.

He then goes on to suggest that concerns raised by members of PML-N and PPP about the possibility of some “hidden hands” trying to influence the constitution are “meant to intimidate the Supreme Court.” This is curious for two reasons: First, Mr. Asif Ezdi is no child. Actually, he was an Ambassador when Gen. Musharraf was in power. So surely he knows a thing or two about “hidden hands” and the fact that these are sadly not unheard-of in our politics. Second, doesn’t Asif Ezdi have it backwards? Doesn’t it make more sense to say that threatening to overturn the 18th Amendment is the Supreme Court trying to intimidate the government?

Ezdi did learn something since his latest column. He criticizes Abdul Hafeez Pirzada for making claims that are “beyond the realm of the possible.” But then he goes on to suggest that “there are many conceivable scenarios in which a constitutional amendment is so flagrantly in violation of the most elementary norms of democracy and of justice that it should not be permitted to stand.” Obviously this is true, but the question here is not whether there can be some bad amendment to the Constitution. That is obvious from the 17th Amendment.

The question, though, is who is the proper government authority to correct the constitution? The courts  did not threaten to throw out the 17th Amendment. It is only the 18th Amendment when they have suddenly declared this power. So the question must be, is this within the rightful authority of the courts or the parliament? This is the actual debate, so let’s stick to it.

Mr. Asif Ezdi is very confused about the term “judicial review”. Judicial review is the doctrine that says that legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the courts to ensure they are compatible with the defining laws of the country. In Pakistan, this is the Constitution. Mr. Asif Ezdi argues that there is something even higher than the Constitution which he calls “basic structure.” But he cannot define what this basic structure is. Actually, nobody can because what it really means is “whatever I say.” That is not democracy, it is dictatorship.

Nevertheless, Ezdi suggests that constitutional amendments should be open to judicial review using a most poor logical sleight-of-hand.

Some of the arguments given by those who oppose a judicial review of constitutional amendments can be easily dismissed. The contention that such a judicial review is not possible because it is specifically excluded by Articles 239 (5) and (6) is clearly untenable, because it is a circular argument. It uses a premise to prove a conclusion that, in turn, is used to prove the premise. These clauses, incidentally, were inserted by Zia to give protection to amendments he had made to validate his martial law.

Ezdi does not realize it, but he has actually harmed his own argument here. First, the argument is not circular, as he claims, but actually answers his question. The court cannot declare the constitution unconstitutional. If there is something in the constitution, then it by definition is constitutional. Second, Ezdi dismisses Articles 239 (5) and (6) because they were inserted by Zia. But if the Supreme Court is responsible for throwing out parts of the constitution that are illegitimate, why have they not thrown these out before? It appears that there is some selectivity to the argument – again, “basic structure” means “whatever I say.” There is no logic to it.

Asif goes on to make more confused statements.

The constitutionality of a piece of legislation depends on whether it is in conformity with the Constitution, not on how many votes it received.

Here is one important clue as to part of Ezdi’s confusion. A constitutional amendment is not a regular piece of legislation like a bill for collecting taxes. Rather, once the constitutional amendment is approved, it becomes part of the constitution. Therefore, it cannot be out of conformity because it would have to be out of conformity with itself. That makes no sense.

Even an amendment decreed by a dictator has the same legal force or validity as one which was passed unanimously.

Here Ezdi is actually proves his entire argument wrong. By saying (correctly) that “an amendment decreed by a dictator has the same legal force or validity as one which was passed unanimously” he is saying that the only way to remove such an amendment is to amend the constitution again. This is what the parliament did in passing the 18th Amendment. Ezdi has made the case for the parliament, even when he did not mean to!

Ezdi continues with his confused explanations by making the following points:

Among these principles are the following: that the state would exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people…A parliamentary form of government is not one of these founding principles, but ensuring the independence of the judiciary is.

It is amazing to think that Mr. Asif Ezdi’s logic actually contradicts itself so obviously. Did he not even read his own column before he submitted it for publication?

The conclusion of Ezdi’s column actually sets aside all of his previous writing and says that, whatever else, he is certain that Article 65A is not in keeping with the Constitution. On this, we agree. After all, there is no Article 65A so how can it be in conformity with the document? Actually, perhaps this is the fundamental problem with Asif Ezdi’s columns on the constitution and judicial review: He apparently has not yet read the documents he is discussing.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Jang, The News | 1 Comment »

Media's Latest Conspiracy Theory

Monday, April 26th, 2010

Asif EzdiThe latest conspiracy theory to circulate in the media is that, by signing the 18th Amendment, Zardari has managed to gain power. Yes, this is the same media who only weeks ago predicted that Zardari would not sign the bill because it stripped his powers. Now that their predictions have (once again) proved wrong, the media has been scrambling to find some new conspiracy tale to fill their pages.

Asif Ezdi explains this latest conspiracy in his column for The News, “Little to Celebrate.” One suspects that, since the media only celebrates failure, the passage of the 18th Amendment would definitely give them little reason for happiness.

Here is the conspiracy in Ezdi’s own words,

Besides, the new Article 63-A on defection virtually empowers the head of the majority party or coalition of parties to dictate who the prime minister will be. Since political parties are no longer obliged under the Constitution to hold intra-party elections, the current practice of hereditary leadership in the parties has now received constitutional blessing.

It is not inconceivable that the law requiring elections in the parties may be held by a pliant judiciary to be unconstitutional after the deletion of Clause 4 of Article 17. The way has thus been cleared for the seamless succession of the next generation of the Zardari-Bhutto clan, the Sharif family and the other illustrious dynasties which dominate Pakistan’s political arena.

A party head, moreover, does not have to meet the qualifications for holding elective office laid down in the Constitution. He could, in theory, even be a non-citizen or someone less than 25 years old, such as Bilawal. More important, he could even be a person who has been convicted of treason or other serious offence such as graft or money-laundering. That means that even if Zardari is found guilty of corruption, which few doubt would happen if the cover of constitutional immunity is taken away, he could still continue as party head and, in that capacity, dictate the choice of the country’s prime minister, if his party has majority support. The period of disqualification on conviction has in any case been reduced under the 18th Amendment from lifelong to five years.

First, let us examine several words and phrases that Ezdi uses in his explanation. These are,

  1. virtually empowers
  2. It is not inconceivable that
  3. may be held
  4. in theory

All of these words and phrases amount to the same thing. They are a way for an author to say something that is so completely unlikely that it is truly a waste of the readers time, while still pretending that he is making some sense.

Ezdi words can also easily support this sentence: “In theory, it is not inconceivable that President Zardari has superpowers that may be held to virtually empower him to fly.” Ezdi could write this, but who would honestly believe that President Zardari can fly?

Let us look at what Ezdi wrote with the same critical eye. Does he honestly expect us to believe that it would ever happen that a political party run by a 15-year-old Indian money-laundering traitor would place as Prime Minister the head of Israel’s Likud party and the nation would be forced to accept it? Because that scenario fits perfectly with Ezdi’s conspiracy.

Of course, this is too ridiculous to even believe, so Ezdi uses a rhetorical trick by mentioning Zardari, Bilawal, and Nawaz Sharif (just to keep things fair across party lines, I suppose).

But let’s examine what the constitution actually says. This is Article 63A in its entirety:

63A. Disqualification on grounds of defection, etc.
(1) If a member of a Parliamentary Party composed of a single political party in a House-
(a) resigns from membership of his political party or joins another Parliamentary Party; or
(b) votes or abstains from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by the Parliamentary Party to which he belongs, in relations to-
(i) election of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister; or
(ii) a vote of confidence or a vote of no-confidence; or
(iii) a Money Bill;
he may be declared in writing by the Head of the Parliamentary Party to have defected from the political party, and the Head of the Parliamentary Party may forward a copy of the declaration to the Presiding Officer, and shall similarly forward a copy thereof to the member concerned:

Provided that before making the declaration, the Head of the Parliamentary Party shall provide such member with an opportunity to show cause as to why such declaration may not be made against him.

(2) A member of a House shall be deemed to be a member of a Parliamentary Party if he having been elected as a candidate or nominee of a political party which constitutes the Parliamentary Party in the House or, having been elected otherwise than as a candidate or nominee of a political party, has become a member of such Parliamentary Party after such election by means of a declaration in writing.
(3) Upon receipt of the declaration under clause (1), the Presiding Officer of the House shall within two days refer the declaration to the Chief Election Commissioner who shall lay the declaration before the Election Commission for its decision thereon confirming the declaration or otherwise within thirty days of its receipt by the Chief Election Commissioner.
(4) Where the Election Commission confirms the declaration, the member referred to in clause (1) shall cease to be a member of the House and his seat shall become vacant.
(5) Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Election Commission may within thirty days, prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court which shall decide the matter within three months from the date of the filing of the appeal.
(6) Nothing contained in this Article shall apply to the Chairman or Speaker of a House.
(7) For the purpose of this Article-
(a) “House” means the National Assembly or the Senate in relation to the Federation and a Provincial Assembly in relation to the Province, as the case may be.
(b) “Presiding Officer” means the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Chairman of the Senate or the Speaker of the Provincial Assembly, as the case may be.

Obviously, the article that Ezdi refers to says nothing about allowing the head of the majority party or coalition of parties “to dictate who the prime minister will be.” Ezdi’s assertion otherwise is fundamentally not true. How he can say this is beyond my understanding.

What the article does say is that if a member of a political party stops supporting his party, he does not own his seat. He was elected by the people based on his party affiliation, and if he misled the people, he should not be able to keep his seat in parliament as he is not representing the people but only himself. You can agree or disagree with this, but please be honest about it.

Asif Ezdi, a former member of the foreign service, should know better than to mislead people with twisted facts, misleading rhetoric, and patently unrealistic hypothetical scenarios. He should know better than to call the people of his country “losers”, too. Asif Ezdi does not have to like democracy, the 18th Amendment, Asif Zardari or Nawaz Sharif. But, please sir, do not make up stories and spread unsubstantiated fears that mislead the people.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in The News | 1 Comment »

Ansar Abbasi Misleads Public On 18th Amendment

Saturday, April 24th, 2010

The following is a guest post submitted by dear reader Sibtain Naqvi who took some time out of studying for his exams to respond to misleading statements in The News. Please, if you would like to submit a post for publication, or if you see a particularly misleading article in the media, send us an email at pakistanmediawatch@gmail.com

Since the inception of the 18th Amendment, The News has been constantly attacking the newly minted legislation. Being a major publication, it is the paper’s duty to pinpoint the flaws of the legislation and enlighten the public of discrepancies they may find. However, the two main articles that have been published only look to manipulate the public’s perception of the legislation by creating bogus facts or twisting the clauses to misrepresent what has been passed.

In the first article published by The News “PM to stay a puppet”?, Ansar Abbasi suggests that Prime Minister Gilani will still remain a dummy premier, even though he would have amassed all the constitutional powers granted to him. Although the 18th Amendment is a long piece of legislation the important migration of powers from the President to the Prime Minister should not go unnoticed. The President no longer has the authority to dissolve the Parliament or appoint the head of the military. These two powers, previously belonging to President Zardari did not sit well with the “independent” media. From the second Mr. Zardari took his Presidential oath, media personalities constantly lambasted him for retaining such powers. After passing on this authority to the Prime Minister, Ansar Abbasi seems to be dumbfounded.

The author backs up his argument by stating “After the insertion of the 18th Amendment…the PPP-head he can remove the prime minister, get unseated any number of ministers or the members belonging to his party”. He further articulates “there is no more room left for any member to vote according to his or her conscience except at the risk of getting unseated”. Now, to a layperson, such bold statements would truly make our members of government look like lame ducks.

It is the basic art of writing that when one makes an assertion he backs it up with a source. In the 627 word article “PM to stay a puppet”, Ansar Abbasi has not once given a reference from the 18th Amendment. After all, he is making such sweeping statements that the party head can get his politicians removed, I am sure there would be a clause somewhere in the text of the 18th Amendment. Being an amateur journalist, I took the liberty of reading the Constitution of Pakistan and the new legislation.

Article 63A. Disqualification on grounds of defection etc, (1)“If a member of a Parliament Party composed of a single political party in a House

(a) resigns from membership of his political party or joins another Parliamentary Party,

(b) votes or abstains from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by the Parliamentary Party to which he belongs, in relation to

i. election of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister; or
ii. a vote of confidence or a vote of no-confidence; or
iii. a Money Bill or a Constitution (Amendment) Bill
he may be declared in writing by the Party Head to have defected from the political party, and the Party Head may forward a copy of the declaration to the Presiding Officer.

The “a Constitution (Amendment) Bill” is the only addition to this article in the 18th Amendment. Therefore, in no way have the political Party Head’s received greater power under the new law. If Ansar Abbasi believes that this is the case, I would request him to show me the article or clause by which he made this assumption.

I was going to take the higher route and let this particular Mr. Ansar Abbasi make himself look like a fool, but when he wrote another article today “Convicts can grab top political posts” it was difficult for me to let this article slide. Being fair to the author, this time around he did manage to give a reference to a particular clause in the 18th Amendment from which he drew his assumption. In “Convicts can grab top political posts”, Ansar Abbasi states “The 18th Amendment inserted a new Article 63 (1) (j). This is not true as such clause was already present in the Constitution. Furthermore, clause (j) as quoted by the author is incorrect, it is actually clause (g) to which he should be referring to.

Ansar Abbasi is trying to make the case that due to the addition of the statement “unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release” to Article 63 (1) (g)(h)(i), all convicts will now automatically become office bearers. I would like to reiterate that in order to become any “public –official” one needs to win an election. The power of the vote lies with the people and if the electorate is content on handing a public office to a convict, than that is the democracy. Furthermore, an elected convict could still be challenged under “Article 62 (1) (d) he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions” and Article 62 (1) (f) he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and amen, and there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law”. There are still laws protecting irrational characters from being elected to office. The electorate is a strong minded body and I would ask Ansar Abbasi not to under-estimate the power of the vote.

The purpose of my writing this article is to identify the incorrect and misleading manner by which our reporters have started to pen their assumptions. It is unprofessional and irresponsible for journalists such as Ansar Abbasi to mislead the public by misinforming them of the facts. I should have been studying for my exams instead of writing this article. But since what was written in the newspaper was so outrageous and deceiving, I am going to be getting an earful from my parents about procrastinating on my academics. Thanks a lot The News!

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Jang, The News | 6 Comments »