#11thHour #ImranKhan #PTI #ReservedSeats #WaseemBadami #ElectionCommission #SupremeCourt #QaziFeazIsa
11th Hour | Waseem Badami | ARY News | 11th July 2024
11th Hour | Waseem Badami | ARY News | 11th July 2024
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00We will be back after a short break.
00:20Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim, Assalam-o-Alaikum.
00:22The biggest court in Pakistan is currently under discussion.
00:26Excuse me, I have a cough in my throat due to constant waking up.
00:31The situation is that, excuse me,
00:34tomorrow morning, the biggest court in Pakistan
00:37will decide on an important case.
00:40Cases keep coming, important cases keep coming,
00:42and decisions keep coming.
00:44But this case is a little different from many other cases.
00:48In today's program, we will discuss two different cases
00:52that are currently under discussion.
00:55We will talk to four relevant personalities.
00:59In a simple and easy way, we will answer some basic questions.
01:03One is, what is this issue?
01:06Actually, what is the issue?
01:08Second is, what will be the effects of this in Pakistan's politics?
01:11Third is, what are the expectations?
01:13We will do all this in a simple and easy way.
01:15First of all, let's start with the biggest institution in Pakistan,
01:18that is, the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
01:20The PTI or the Sunni Ijtihad Council,
01:22technically, they are different things, but if we understand them,
01:25the PTI candidates who fought the free elections,
01:27then joined the Sunni Ijtihad Council,
01:29they said that they should get special seats,
01:31which was rejected.
01:32Then they went to the Supreme Court.
01:34Tomorrow, the decision will be made
01:35whether they will get those additional seats or not.
01:38We have enough reasons to believe.
01:41It can be said based on reasonable reasons
01:43that the importance of this is less.
01:45And our experts will give their opinion on this,
01:48whether they agree with me or not.
01:50Relatively speaking,
01:52the importance of this is less,
01:53whether the PTI will get those seats or not.
01:55Of course, they will get them.
01:56The PTI's position will be strong.
01:57There is no doubt about it.
01:58But the importance of this is even more,
02:00whether the government will get these seats or not.
02:02So, the importance of getting the government,
02:04PTI means an increase in their strength,
02:06which will obviously be a plus point for them.
02:08But getting the government means
02:10that the entire Kumran Ijtihad
02:12will come around two-thirds.
02:14Let's take two-thirds,
02:15in Pakistan's biggest institution.
02:17Two-thirds means that
02:18it will have the power to change the constitution,
02:20which is a very big power.
02:22And that means that
02:23if it is a judicial package,
02:25it can also bring about changes
02:27in the constitution
02:28and also bring about changes
02:30in the highest courts of Pakistan.
02:32It can also bring about changes
02:34in the possibility of increasing the age of sitting judges.
02:37Again, we will ask the experts,
02:38is this all a crazy dream?
02:40Why have we blown it so high?
02:42Have we made a mountain out of a molehill?
02:43Or no, this is the reality.
02:45So, let's talk about all these things.
02:47The second issue is that
02:48there is another most important court,
02:50Islamabad High Court.
02:51In an unprecedented move,
02:53not one, not two, not three,
02:54not four, not five,
02:55not six judges,
02:57not by saying,
02:58not by means,
02:59but by writing,
03:00that we have this pressure,
03:01we have this pressure,
03:02we have this issue,
03:03we have this issue.
03:04Out of those judges,
03:05apparently,
03:06some objections are raised against one,
03:08which are interpreted by the respected judges
03:10as an organized campaign against them.
03:12A case about that also goes to court.
03:14A decision has to be made on that as well.
03:16And in that,
03:17Islamabad Bar says that
03:19they also interpret it as an organized campaign against the judges.
03:22So, we have a lot of experts with us.
03:24We will talk to them.
03:26Mr. Intidhar Hussain Panjota
03:28is a lawyer for Pakistan Tariq-e-Insaaf.
03:30Obviously, Pakistan Tariq-e-Insaaf
03:31is a very important team for all these cases.
03:33Whether it is about the special sessions,
03:35or whether it is about pressurizing the judges.
03:39Mr. Saqib Bashir is a very senior court reporter.
03:41So, we will ask him,
03:42in simple words,
03:43to explain what the issue is.
03:45We have heard that there are some facts,
03:47some are visible,
03:48I will not read the second part of it.
03:50And the case is just a coincidence.
03:52So, we will try to explain it to him.
03:54And there is a very interesting move,
03:56we will also try to understand it.
03:58It seems that the decision may come on that day,
04:01or the day after,
04:02or the day after,
04:03but it did not come.
04:04The decision is safe now.
04:05Then the news spread that
04:06the decision will come today,
04:08but it did not come.
04:09Then it came officially in the cause list,
04:13that the decision has come in the cause list.
04:15Tomorrow at 9 am,
04:16these three judges will announce the decision.
04:18There were five judges,
04:19one more judge,
04:20and one judge was probably not listening to the case.
04:22At 9 am.
04:23Then it came that no, no.
04:25Now at 12 am,
04:26not three judges,
04:27but all the judges will be sitting,
04:29and the decision will be announced.
04:31Again,
04:32we have enough reasons to believe
04:34that the case is not at all simple.
04:36I am sure there must have been some tapping error.
04:38That instead of 12 am,
04:39three judges were announced,
04:40instead of 12 am,
04:419 am was announced,
04:42then again at 9 am,
04:4312 am was announced.
04:44So, there is something else.
04:45Then we will also try to understand
04:46that the decision is safe.
04:48So, after the decision is safe,
04:50sitting for hours with the highest judge
04:52of the highest court
04:53regarding a decision,
04:55is this a normal practice?
04:57If not,
04:58then again,
04:59this is also not a coincidence.
05:00So, there are many unusual things.
05:03So, we will also try to understand this from Mr. Saqib.
05:06Mr. Mia Dawood is an advocate of the high court.
05:08Mr. Mia Dawood,
05:09before this,
05:10in the recent history,
05:11has been a reference in the case of Supreme Court of Pakistan.
05:14Mr. Mazahir Naqvi also went home.
05:16After that,
05:17Mr. Ejad Olaisan,
05:18in another case,
05:19not in one case,
05:20that is, in another development,
05:22he also went home,
05:23being the next Chief Justice.
05:25In the case of the High Court of Islamabad,
05:28he is also a related team.
05:30So, we will also talk to him.
05:31We will wait for Mr. Pinchoda.
05:32And Mr. Riyasat Ali Azad,
05:35we can say that this is the state
05:37with which we can talk very easily.
05:39And he is the President of Islamabad High Court Bar.
05:42Islamabad High Court Bar has also given its own opinion on all this.
05:46We will talk to him
05:47so that we can know
05:48what the state is thinking,
05:50what the state is thinking about all this.
05:52So, I am very thankful to all the guests.
05:56Quickly, first Mr. Saqib,
05:57you tell me,
05:58the latest development,
06:01we will try to understand that,
06:03is this normal?
06:05Or is it abnormal?
06:07What is the secret behind it?
06:10A few hours ago,
06:11it was said that the cause list has been set.
06:13These three judges will give their verdict tomorrow morning at 9 am.
06:16Then it was said that no,
06:18all the judges will give their verdict at 12 am.
06:21Is this normal or what is happening?
06:23What has happened?
06:26This is not normal.
06:28Until the cause list of these three judges came,
06:31it could have been considered normal.
06:34Because generally,
06:35even if there are no judges in the bench,
06:38at the time of announcement,
06:40the head of the bench can give his verdict.
06:44There is no problem.
06:45Because the verdict given by the 13 judges is the same.
06:48No doubt, only three judges can give their verdict.
06:50But this is an extraordinary situation
06:53when the cause list came again an hour ago.
06:58This means that
06:59there has been a confusion since then.
07:02A debate has been generated.
07:04One thing is very clear,
07:06that somewhere inside the Supreme Court,
07:09this thing must have been discussed and pointed out
07:12that all the judges should sit instead of three.
07:15And it is possible that the three-judge decision
07:17was made by the Chief Justice's Chamber or from their side
07:20that all three should sit and give their verdict.
07:22So that's why they started the cause list again.
07:25And again, as a layman,
07:27I will ask a very simple question.
07:30You answer in the same way,
07:31so that it is clear for us and the viewers.
07:33Why is it important and relevant?
07:35The verdict has been given,
07:36so there is no need to listen to anyone else's arguments.
07:38In fact, there is no need to change the verdict.
07:40So, should the three judges come and give their verdict?
07:42Or should we feel that,
07:43why these three, why not us?
07:45Why is this important?
07:46The verdict has to be read and the matter is over.
07:49This is how it is, isn't it?
07:51No, this is exactly how it is.
07:52Even if the three judges gave their verdict,
07:53there was no problem in that.
07:54But if you call it a disagreement,
07:57or the judges who have different opinions,
08:02this is what is being expressed.
08:04This is what the verdict is expressing.
08:05Otherwise, as I said,
08:06there was nothing beyond what the 13 judges decided.
08:10The same verdict had to be read at 9 o'clock.
08:12The same verdict has to be read at 12 o'clock.
08:14And tomorrow, no judge has to give any comment,
08:16no dialogue, no remark.
08:18They just have to come and read it.
08:19No, nothing.
08:20They have to come, sit, and announce the verdict.
08:23It's a very simple matter.
08:25And the interesting thing is that,
08:28earlier it seemed that it would be shown live at 9 o'clock,
08:32or not.
08:33The bench, because there are three member benches,
08:35the regular bench is not shown live.
08:37But now it is that it will be shown live at 12 o'clock.
08:40Because all the cases of the appointed judges
08:43have been shown live, all the hearings.
08:45So this will also be live,
08:46and the whole world will be able to see it in Pakistan.
08:48Okay.
08:49And tell me one more thing,
08:50that what I said earlier,
08:51that a case, a high-profile case,
08:54which has seven hearings,
08:55if I am recalling it correctly,
08:57has been shown live for hours,
08:59the verdict has been secured.
09:00After that, apparently,
09:02the judge sitting for hours on the same verdict,
09:05this is also unusual.
09:07And if yes, then why is it so?
09:09Why? Why is he sitting?
09:10What happened?
09:11What does this tell us?
09:12Okay, this is not unusual.
09:15Okay.
09:16The reason for this is that this is common.
09:18Whether there are three judges,
09:19five or seven judges,
09:20when they do so many hearings,
09:22after that they sit in their routine.
09:24But this is being talked about more,
09:28or questions are being raised,
09:29because this has been reported.
09:31Because its consequences are very common.
09:33Its future is related to our politics,
09:36with this decision.
09:37So our reporters,
09:38we were also waiting,
09:40so in a moment of reporting,
09:41then it was also reported that
09:43they are sitting for consultation.
09:44Otherwise, judges do consult.
09:46They do consult once, twice, three times.
09:48They discuss.
09:49This is not unusual.
09:51Okay.
09:52Mr. Shakir, I will come back to you,
09:53so that I can ask you,
09:54what is your opinion?
09:55Where can the verdict come?
09:56What are the positions of the judge?
09:58Now, everyone is waiting for this verdict.
10:01Do you also see it from this angle?
10:03Of course, it is your wish
10:05that your party has a special session.
10:07And you have a whole case.
10:08It is not difficult to argue.
10:10Let's talk about the future today.
10:11What are your reasons?
10:12Why do you think you should get this session?
10:14It has been discussed a lot.
10:16But in your opinion,
10:18it is very important that
10:20if they get it,
10:22then two-thirds will be theirs.
10:24Two-thirds means that
10:25there will be an amendment,
10:26which means that
10:27during the judicial package,
10:28a lot more can come.
10:29Do you also see it from this angle,
10:30Mr. Intihar?
10:33Look, Mr. Wasim,
10:34when you ask questions innocently,
10:37and you say that
10:38it is a very straightforward
10:39and simple question,
10:40like a layman.
10:41This is your question.
10:42This is your question.
10:43In reality,
10:44this is the reality.
10:45And this is what should happen.
10:47And I was watching
10:48when I was asking a simple question
10:49innocently,
10:50that I don't know anything,
10:51explain it to me.
10:52How you were smiling at the end.
10:53So I was watching
10:54that you are going to catch me.
10:58Okay.
10:59So this case
11:00is a very important case
11:01in the history of Pakistan.
11:03And its decision will definitely
11:05determine the future course
11:07of politics in Pakistan.
11:10We are also looking at it
11:11in the same way
11:12because its consequences
11:13are very important.
11:15Now we will find out
11:16whether,
11:17on the one hand,
11:18you see what happened
11:19to justice in Pakistan
11:20before the election,
11:21after the election,
11:22on 8th February,
11:23the way Pakistan
11:24voted for us,
11:25after that,
11:269th February,
11:27and till today,
11:28you see that
11:29a report has recently come
11:30according to which
11:31our,
11:32the circles,
11:33their form 45,
11:35which the Election Commission
11:37had uploaded on its website,
11:39they are still being changed.
11:40That is,
11:41they have been changed
11:42in July.
11:43So these things
11:44are going on simultaneously.
11:45On the one hand,
11:46the process of stealing
11:47our mandate,
11:48the attempts to cover
11:49it up have come
11:50in different ways,
11:51sometimes ordinances
11:52have come,
11:53sometimes enactments
11:54have come,
11:55and then,
11:56whatever has been done
11:57blatantly,
11:58that is also in front of you.
11:59So now,
12:00these seats,
12:01those seats
12:02that they have
12:03declared themselves
12:04and given us,
12:05after that,
12:06they are not giving us our share.
12:07Now even after that,
12:08they are sitting
12:09in front of us
12:10and giving us
12:11their share.
12:12This thing is
12:13very important.
12:14As you said,
12:15it will increase
12:16our strength.
12:17But if we go
12:18to the other side,
12:19then they will
12:20obviously
12:21take us
12:22towards the
12:23constitutional amendment.
12:24After the judicial
12:25package,
12:26they have started
12:27pressuring us.
12:28In fact,
12:29the law minister,
12:30if I am not wrong,
12:31has said
12:32publicly
12:33somewhere,
12:34we have
12:35a lot of information
12:36off the record,
12:37that the extension
12:38of the constitutional
12:39amendment
12:40has been done.
12:41And in the meantime,
12:42I will tell you
12:43a simple question.
12:44Look,
12:45if tomorrow
12:46the decision
12:47is made
12:48that you will
12:49get the seats,
12:50obviously
12:51you will
12:52interpret it
12:53as your victory,
12:54or you will
12:55interpret it
12:56as your defeat
12:57and you will
12:58review it
12:59and everything.
13:00If it comes
13:01that you are
13:02not getting
13:03the seats,
13:04but they
13:05are also
13:06not getting
13:07the seats,
13:08then you
13:09will
13:10interpret
13:11it as
13:12your defeat
13:13or not?
13:14Look,
13:15these seats
13:16cannot go
13:17to them
13:18in any
13:19way.
13:20They
13:21cannot
13:22go to
13:23them
13:24in any
13:25way.
13:26They
13:27cannot
13:28go to
13:29them
13:30in any
13:31way.
13:32They
13:33cannot
13:34go to
13:35them
13:36in
13:37any
13:38way.
13:39They
13:40should
13:41not
13:42go to
13:43them
13:44in
13:45any
13:46way.
13:47How
13:48is it
13:49possible?
13:50How
13:51is it
13:52logical?
13:53This
13:54is a
13:55simple
13:56thing.
13:57If you
13:58want to
13:59make it
14:00proportionate,
14:01they
14:02will
14:03go to
14:04them
14:05in
14:06any
14:07way.
14:08If
14:09you
14:10want
14:11them
14:12to
14:13go to
14:14them
14:15in
14:16any
14:17way
14:18you
14:19must
14:20make
14:21it
14:22proportional
14:23to
14:24the
14:25seats
14:26they
14:27are
14:28not
14:29getting.
14:30How
14:31is it
14:32logical?
14:33This
14:34will be given to the opposition party, Babuji?
14:38No, no, I don't agree with any of your questions.
14:43I am very clear from day one that the language of Article 51.6d of the Constitution
14:51should be decided in accordance with it.
14:55It should not be decided on the basis of blackmailing or trolling of a political party.
15:07Just as Saqib Nisar Sahib in the past created a need for a political party
15:13and ruined the face of the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions.
15:18Article 51.6d of the Constitution clearly states that specific seats will only be given to those
15:25who win the elections and do not keep their representation in the Parliament.
15:33And if there is no such party, then on the basis of that, the rules of the Election Commission
15:41and the Constitution state that if you want to distribute the proportional representation,
15:47then the remaining parties will be distributed among those political parties.
15:54Even if one party wins the seat, then on the basis of that distribution,
16:01they will get two, three, six, whatever they get.
16:05So, Dawood Sahib, how is this proportional representation?
16:09The mandate of the Election Commission has been given by the Constitution.
16:15The decision has to be taken by the Election Commission.
16:17The decision taken by the Election Commission is in my personal opinion the right one.
16:30And it is expected that the Supreme Court should make the same decision in accordance with the Constitution.
16:36It is expected that the PTI and the Sunni Tihaat Council should not be given the seat,
16:39but the rest should be distributed.
16:41There is no existence of the PTI.
16:42Okay, I will say the Sunni Tihaat Council.
16:43There is no existence of the PTI.
16:45Okay, Sunni Tihaat Council.
16:46There is no existence of the Sunni Tihaat Council.
16:49So, this is…
16:51The existence of the Sunni Tihaat Council is…
16:53Salman Akram Raja…
16:54No, no, no, Mr. Naseem, we are talking about the law.
16:57Salman Akram Raja is not the lawyer of Hamas in this case.
17:01Faisal Siddiqui is not the lawyer of Hamas in this case.
17:06They give him the ARY screen.
17:08The existence is theirs.
17:10No, no, no.
17:12But, Mr. Dawood, it is obvious that Faisal Siddiqui and Salman Akram Raja
17:17are not representing the Pakistan Cricket Board in the Supreme Court.
17:20So, the existence of these Jamaats is their representation.
17:25Yes, the existence of these Jamaats is outside the Parliament.
17:28Sir, there is no existence of the PTI in the Parliament.
17:31There is no existence of the Sunni Tihaat Council in accordance with the law and the constitution.
17:34Sir, the Parliament…
17:35Even today, you remember…
17:36You can do as much propaganda as you want.
17:38I need corrections from you again and again.
17:40The Senate is a part of the Parliament.
17:42Mr. Mian, you have become a new lawyer.
17:44You should know that the Parliament…
17:46Yes, in 2024, after the elections in 2024…
17:49There are still members of the PTI in the Senate.
17:51We are talking about the 2024 elections.
17:53In the 2024 elections…
17:55Don't make a Parliament.
17:57People have reached there.
17:58The political parties have reached there.
18:00There is no existence of the PTI and the Sunni Tihaat Council there.
18:03Call it the National Assembly.
18:04It is outside the Parliament.
18:05The National Assembly is the Parliament, Ahwane Bala, Ahwane Zehri, and Sanghar-e-Pakistan.
18:10You have already said in the court that the decision will come tomorrow.
18:14We are talking about the three sessions of the National Assembly.
18:17It is understandable that we are talking about the National Assembly.
18:20The Election Commission has made a wrong interpretation of the 13th of January decision.
18:23I am going towards the state.
18:25Judges' observations are not decisions.
18:29The Election Commission has made a wrong interpretation of the 13th of January decision.
18:32We will know what the state thinks about it.
18:34We will know the general opinion.
18:36It is a dream that the PTI has ended.
18:38There is no PTI.
18:39The PTI will remain.
18:40Let's see.
18:43Mr. Badami, I have not interrupted anyone.
18:46It is outside the National Assembly.
18:47It is not inside the National Assembly.
18:48Okay.
18:49Mr. Badami, I have not interrupted anyone.
18:52Please, no one has interrupted me.
18:54Please, let me answer your question.
18:57I have not interrupted anyone.
18:59Have you seen the effect of the name?
19:01Mr. Intidar, Mr. Saqib and Mr. Dawood.
19:03They have started from here.
19:05I have not interrupted.
19:06I was talking.
19:07Sir, please order.
19:08We are listening.
19:09Thank you very much, Mr. Badami.
19:11First of all, in Article 51 of the Constitution,
19:18the proportionate has been mentioned.
19:21According to the proportionate,
19:23the political party that wins or joins
19:26will get reserve seats.
19:30In Article 51, it is not written anywhere
19:35that the political party that wins
19:38will get seats.
19:40It is not written in that.
19:42Secondly, it is provided in the rules
19:47that you have to give a list.
19:49It is mentioned in Article 4 of Section 104
19:54that you have to give a list of candidates.
19:58It has not been given.
19:59First of all, I would like to talk about
20:02law favour the adjudication on merit
20:04rather than the technicalities.
20:06In the circumstances in which these elections took place,
20:09you know that in Pakistan,
20:11there was no doubt that the elections might take place.
20:14And with one or two political parties,
20:17it was like a hockey match.
20:19There were left outs, right outs,
20:21penalty stop, penalty corner, etc.
20:23It was not known.
20:24It was a puzzling situation.
20:26In the meanwhile, the Supreme Court
20:28put a judge who now the Supreme Court says
20:31that our decision has been misinterpreted.
20:33Article 186 of the Constitution of 1973,
20:37if Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's reference is used
20:40and the court reviews it,
20:42corrects it,
20:44that Article 10 of the Constitution of 1973
20:48is missing in Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's trial
20:50and he corrected it.
20:52Yes, if this is a mistake on the part of PTI,
20:56then it can be corrected.
20:58A three-day opportunity can also be given
21:00to give them an opportunity.
21:02What is the fault of the voters?
21:05The question arises,
21:07I vote for Zaid.
21:09My affiliation with the state is a vote.
21:12If my vote is given to someone else,
21:15then my loyalty to the state
21:17will be diverted.
21:19So this is a question of fact
21:22and a question of loyalty to the state.
21:25So second thing, beyond that,
21:27now it has come that a person
21:30gives a 100-number paper,
21:32he can be given 120,
21:34no matter how beautiful it is,
21:36no matter how many flowers he puts on it,
21:38he can attempt the paper,
21:40it cannot be given.
21:42Now it has come,
21:44can they get it or not?
21:46Yes, they can get it.
21:48Because, look,
21:50the quantum of seats they have won,
21:52give them their right.
21:54What right is this?
21:56Like the Priory,
21:58these seats are given to someone else.
22:03Welcome.
22:05Mr. Saqib Bashir,
22:07tell us one thing about 100 things.
22:09Give us some news, some opinion,
22:11what is it?
22:1313 judges have come,
22:15so what is the possibility?
22:17Everyone has given their opinion,
22:19what should happen in the opinion of Mr. Mian Daud,
22:21legally their opinion,
22:23in the opinion of Mr. Riazat, in the opinion of Mr. Manoj Tijari.
22:25What is the news or your analysis?
22:27Where is the possibility of the decision going?
22:29What is the possibility of it coming?
22:32Regarding the appropriate representation,
22:34the article 51D of the constitution,
22:36regarding that,
22:38one thing that came up in the entire hearing,
22:40that the appropriate representation,
22:42if the Sunni Council has to give seats,
22:44then the Supreme Court has to explain,
22:46and if it has to give to the other political parties,
22:48then it has to explain.
22:50The matter of text,
22:52this will also come in the last hearing.
22:54Is it written in the text
22:56that the other political parties will get it?
22:58It is not written in the text.
23:00This is very clear.
23:02And the second thing,
23:04the bench of the Supreme Court,
23:06on which it was almost unanimous,
23:08including Chief Justice Qazi Faizan,
23:10he gave observations in different hearings.
23:12That was that the decision of the Supreme Court
23:14on 13th January,
23:16on that, the election commission
23:18on 2nd February,
23:20the explanation that was given,
23:22that explanation was not correct.
23:24And that PTI,
23:26all the candidates related to PTI were declared free.
23:28So at this point,
23:30I think that maybe the Supreme Court
23:32has the power of 184.7,
23:34of complete justice,
23:36can go towards that,
23:38because in a very clear way,
23:40Justice Mansoor Ali Shah,
23:42the future Chief Justice,
23:44was saying that
23:46we cannot close our eyes to the impact.
23:48He also said that
23:50we are the Supreme Court,
23:52we can see any matter
23:54that is related to it.
23:56If the full court of the Supreme Court
23:58cannot see this,
24:00then I think the civil court or the high court
24:02will not see it.
24:04That is why I have a very clear view
24:06that when the majority of the Supreme Court
24:08was on this during the proceedings,
24:10that the election commission has given
24:12a wrong explanation,
24:14which is the root of all this,
24:16then the decision,
24:18you have to come in front of us,
24:20the decision has to come tomorrow,
24:22that which judges will be on which side,
24:24the decision that can possibly come,
24:26should be given to the Sunni Jihad Council
24:28or to the PTI.
24:30Ultimately, the public mandate,
24:32the reflection that will be there
24:34in the parliament,
24:36that is what will be made.
24:38There is no need for an opinion.
24:40The need for an opinion will be that,
24:42in my opinion,
24:44I will say the last thing,
24:46give 78 seats to that parliament,
24:48to which the public has not given a mandate,
24:50and after that,
24:52they can do whatever they want,
24:54and in that process,
24:56the judges' 3 years of extension,
24:58that is also under consideration,
25:00and another very important thing,
25:02the 6 judges of Islamabad High Court,
25:04they wrote a letter,
25:06after which it became clear,
25:08that the judges of Islamabad High Court,
25:10especially,
25:12they should be transferred
25:14immediately,
25:16that means, some people will say,
25:18in this city,
25:20the government has got the seats,
25:22the judicial reform has been done,
25:24and the reform has been done,
25:26that one judge of Islamabad High Court
25:28will be transferred to Balochistan,
25:30and the other one to Sindh,
25:32and the third one to Punjab,
25:34and the judges will be brought here,
25:36so these are multiple things,
25:38so I don't think the Supreme Court
25:40will ignore the impact of this.
25:42Alright, and in your opinion,
25:44I am deducing from your opinion,
25:46do you think that the Sunni Jihad Council
25:48and the 7 hearings that took place,
25:50I think this is the crux.
25:52And I am coming to you,
25:54but I am going to Islamabad High Court,
25:56what is your opinion on this, Mr. Riyasat,
25:58do you also think that the government,
26:00if they get the seats,
26:02obviously this is a big IF,
26:04if they get the seats,
26:06do you think the government
26:08will do the same kind of judicial reform
26:10that Mr. Saqib pointed out?
26:12Absolutely, my brother Saqib Bashir
26:14is absolutely right,
26:16and let me tell you one thing,
26:18as the President of the Islamabad High Court Bar Association,
26:20I have already expressed my opinion on this,
26:22and in your program,
26:24I am speaking very categorically,
26:26that we are against any kind of age limitation,
26:30any kind of extension,
26:32any kind of institution,
26:34we are totally against it,
26:36see, what is the wisdom
26:38behind this legislation?
26:40And sir, in your opinion,
26:42are we saying that Islamabad High Court
26:44has a consensus on this?
26:46Wukla community,
26:48with a certain exception,
26:50if there is a minority view,
26:52I cannot say anything,
26:54but the majority view of the lawyers
26:56is that, see,
26:58Mr. Badami,
27:00when he retires,
27:02it means that he is not further
27:04able to discharge his duties
27:06as a judge,
27:08this is the wisdom behind it,
27:10if you want to work with a retired person,
27:12he is not physically, mentally able,
27:14then why are you going to
27:16play with him,
27:18by amending this constitution,
27:20we are against these things,
27:22if this happens,
27:24we will oppose this,
27:26we will protest against this,
27:28these are completely wrong traditions,
27:30I want to go one step further than this,
27:32the retired judges,
27:34they should not be given
27:36a lawyer's license again,
27:38because they have played
27:40their lives,
27:42you should enjoy your life
27:44as a club,
27:46but as a profession,
27:48I think this is not appropriate,
27:50they have a right,
27:52now a person who has been in that profession
27:54all his life,
27:56and he has decided his aim and destination
27:58that I will become a Chief Justice in my life,
28:00and by virtue of this legislation,
28:02you should deprive him,
28:04why should you deprive him,
28:06then secondly,
28:08I will come to this,
28:10Mr. Mirza,
28:12if there is such a constitutional amendment,
28:14what is your opinion on this as a lawyer,
28:16this is the right of the parliament,
28:18governments have been doing this in the past,
28:20there was a government of PTI,
28:22in that time also,
28:24similar laws were being made,
28:26for three and a half years,
28:28they have run the government through ordinances,
28:30as the army used to call them,
28:32General Faiz, General Bajwa,
28:34they used to issue ordinances,
28:36so this is the need of the governments,
28:38this is their wisdom,
28:40they should debate on this,
28:42if PTI has done this,
28:44is it a good example,
28:46no, no, no,
28:48I am not saying this,
28:50this was their right,
28:52this is the right of the present government,
28:54they will do this,
28:56if someone has an objection on this,
28:58they should challenge this in the Supreme Court,
29:00but the parliament can amend the constitution,
29:02this is their right,
29:04they can amend it in any way,
29:06me, you or anyone else,
29:08if there is an objection,
29:10then the best way is,
29:12to sit on the TV channels,
29:14you have told the principle,
29:16what is your personal opinion,
29:18that if the government of the day,
29:20does this type of amendment,
29:22then it is their right,
29:24do you think they are doing the right thing,
29:26or this is a targeted amendment,
29:28to get some targeted benefits,
29:30what is your opinion?
29:32what is your opinion?
29:34to say this,
29:36yes, I was requesting,
29:38to say this,
29:40that the government is doing this,
29:42for its own benefit or not,
29:44I gave you the answer in the first sentence,
29:46that every government,
29:48every amendment,
29:50every amendment,
29:52does it for its own benefit,
29:54this government will also do it,
29:56if someone feels,
29:58that this is wrong,
30:00if the government is doing this,
30:02for its own benefit,
30:04then the state and the country suffers,
30:06so does it hurt you as a lawyer,
30:08whether it is PTI or the law,
30:10this is absolutely wrong,
30:12there is no other opinion in this,
30:14but more than this,
30:16more than this,
30:18the worst thing,
30:20is that our unelected people,
30:22the judges,
30:24they keep ruining the face of the law,
30:26they keep rewriting,
30:28they keep rewriting,
30:30they keep rewriting,
30:32they keep rewriting,
30:34they keep rewriting,
30:36they keep rewriting,
30:38they keep rewriting,
30:40they keep rewriting,
30:42they keep rewriting,
30:44they keep rewriting,
30:46they keep rewriting,
30:48they keep rewriting,
30:50they keep rewriting,
30:52they keep rewriting,
30:54they keep rewriting,
30:56that is totally vested with the courts,
31:00high courts, supreme court,
31:02varies of any law,
31:04varies of any constitution,
31:06varies of any bill,
31:08that can be challenged,
31:10that can be decided by the competent court,
31:12who is selected,
31:14there is no need for interpretation,
31:16if any legislation is not being followed,
31:18there is no need for interpretation,
31:20but there is no need for rewriting,
31:22there is no need for rewriting,
31:24I request you,
31:26I request you,
31:28any legislation,
31:30which is repugnant to the
31:32article 8 to 28 of
31:34constitution of 1973,
31:36then it can be set aside by
31:38high court, supreme court,
31:40male can make female male,
31:42male can make female male,
31:44they have the right to legislation,
31:46but we have to see,
31:48that legislation is better,
31:50that legislation is Latin maxim,
31:52that legislation is Latin maxim,
31:54that legislation is Latin maxim,
31:56that legislation is Latin maxim,
31:58that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:00that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:02that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:04that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:06that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:08that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:10that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:12that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:14that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:16that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:18that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:20that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:22that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:24that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:26that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:28that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:30that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:32that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:34that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:36that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:38that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:40that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:42that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:44that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:46that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:48that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:50that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:52that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:54that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:56that legislation is Latin maxim,
32:58that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:00that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:02that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:04that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:06that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:08that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:10that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:12that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:14that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:16that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:18that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:20that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:22that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:24that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:26that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:28that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:30that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:32that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:34that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:36that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:38that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:40that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:42that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:44that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:46that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:48that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:50that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:52that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:54that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:56that legislation is Latin maxim,
33:58that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:00that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:02that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:04that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:06that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:08that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:10that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:12that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:14that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:16that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:18that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:20that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:22that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:24that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:26that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:28that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:30that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:32that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:34that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:36that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:38that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:40that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:42that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:44that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:46that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:48that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:50that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:52that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:54that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:56that legislation is Latin maxim,
34:58that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:00that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:02that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:04that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:06that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:08that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:10that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:12that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:14that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:16that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:18that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:20that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:22that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:24that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:26that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:28that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:30that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:32that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:34that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:36that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:38that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:40that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:42that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:44that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:46that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:48that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:50that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:52that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:54that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:56that legislation is Latin maxim,
35:58that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:00that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:02that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:04that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:06that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:08that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:10that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:12that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:14that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:16that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:18that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:20that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:22that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:24that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:26that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:28that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:30that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:32that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:34that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:36that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:38that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:40that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:42that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:44that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:46that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:48that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:50that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:52that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:54that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:56that legislation is Latin maxim,
36:58that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:00that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:02that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:04that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:06that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:08that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:10that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:12that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:14that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:16that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:18that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:20that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:22that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:24that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:26that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:28that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:30that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:32that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:34that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:36that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:38that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:40that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:42that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:44that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:46that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:48that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:50that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:52that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:54that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:56that legislation is Latin maxim,
37:58that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:00that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:02that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:04that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:06that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:08that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:10that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:12that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:14that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:16that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:18that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:20that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:22that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:24that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:26that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:28that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:30that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:32that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:34that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:36that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:38that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:40that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:42that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:44that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:46that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:48that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:50that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:52that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:54that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:56that legislation is Latin maxim,
38:58that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:00that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:02that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:04that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:06that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:08that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:10that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:12that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:14that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:16that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:18that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:20that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:22that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:24that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:26that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:28that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:30that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:32that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:34that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:36that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:38that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:40that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:42that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:44that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:46that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:48that legislation is Latin maxim,
39:50that legislation is Latin maxim.