Latest news with #26thAmendment
Business Recorder
5 days ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
27-year prison sentence: PTI MNA Latif claims ruling as bogus terrorism conviction
ISLAMABAD: The firebrand Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) MNA from Chitral Abdul Latif, who was handed down a 27-year prison sentence on Friday, claimed he was given a bogus terrorism conviction after refusing a jaw-dropping Rs2 billion bribe to back the controversial 26th Constitutional Amendment. A diehard loyalist of jailed ex-prime minister Imran Khan, Latif slammed the ruling as revenge by what he called the 'installed regime of Form 47 and its handlers, who are pulling the strings of the puppet Shehbaz Sharif regime.' An Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in Islamabad convicted Latif over his alleged role in the chaotic May 9 riots – when PTI supporters allegedly stormed police stations and government buildings. But Latif insisted the charges were bogus, calling it a false flag set up by the powers that be. Latifinsisted that he didnot even know the police station he is accused of attacking existed. 'I hadn't even heard of the Ramna Police Station until I was falsely accused,' Latif said in a defiant video message following the ATC verdict. 'Just because I support Imran Khan, they threw me into this mess.' The court's decision came down hard – 27 years for allegedly leading the charge on the Ramna PS during the nationwide unrest. But Latif, unbowed, said the real crime was his refusal to accept a massive payoff to support the controversial 26th Amendment – a move that he insisted would have betrayed his party and Khan's ideology. 'There is also a court of Allah, where no police, no pressure works,' he said, taking a fiery swipe at the lower judiciary. 'Justice will ultimately be served.' Latif remained hopeful that the higher judiciary of the country will toss out what he called a 'politically motivated and unjust' ruling. He insisted he would never sell out, no matter the price – or the prison sentence. 'No conviction, no bribe can shake my conscience,' he declared. 'I've stood by Imran Khan for 28 years – and I'm not backing down now nor will I ever in future.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
SC questions validity of majority verdict granting relief to PTI amid review pleas
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) questioned if reviews are allowed then which judgment would prevail, as the majority verdict granted relief to a political party (PTI), which was not before the Court. A Full Court of 13 judges on July 12, 24 had passed five separate orders. Eight judges comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed HasanAzhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan passed one set of order, declaring Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf(PTI) is eligible for reserved seats, while Chief Justice Qazi and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel released separate note. Similarly, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan wrote their own independent opinions. PTI reserved seats: SC issues notices to respondents A 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Monday, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The proceeding was live-streamed on SC's YouTube channel. Justice Amin observed that the main issue in Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC)'s appeal against the Peshawar High Court (PHC)'s judgment was reserved seats for women and non-Muslims, which has not been decided. He stated that none of 80 independent candidates, which had joined the SIC, were neither before ECP, nor PHC and the apex court. The Court on May 22, 2025 dismissed SIC's three applications, pertaining to the composition of the bench; same numerical strength, which heard the original case should hear the review petitions; and that the instant matter be heard after the decision on 26th Amendment. The bench, however, allowed live-streaming of review petitions hearing. The lawyers of the ECP, PPP and PML-N informed the bench they have filed a written submission. Justice Amin told the SIC counsels to get the copy of their submission from the SC Office, and adjourned the hearing until today (Tuesday). Sikandar Bashir, appearing on behalf of the Commission, stated that the ECP has not waived its right of rebuttal. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned that if the reviews are allowed then which judgment would prevail. Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing some MNAs, who were elected on reserved seats of PML-N and PPP tickets, but were de-seated due to the SC's order, contended that the petitions have been filed against the majority judgment. He said if the reviews are allowed then the majority judgment would be overturned as no one has challenged the minority opinions. Justice Mandokhail asked; 'Can I change my views.' Makhdoom replied 'Yes you can.' He argued that the judgment on timeline is beyond the jurisdiction of the apex court. He submitted that Justice NaeemAkhtar Afghan, in his note, stated that to change the timeline, described in Article 51 of the Constitution, for joining a political party by the independents after notification of their victory, is like re-writing the constitution. He said that the justice is administered within the fourwalls of the constitution, adding the Court has power to interpret the constitution and laws, but cannot rewrite them. Makhdoom contended that the majority judgment not only quashed the ECP notification, but also allotted reserved seats to the PTI, and changed the time-limit, given in the constitution. The Court noted that the PTI existed before and after the general elections, but had not contested elections on a particular symbol. Justice MusarratHilali said the symbol is for the general public, if it is not given to the party then it does not disenfranchise the party. She noted that Chairman SIC Hamid Raza has himself contested elections on the ticket of PTI Nazriati. She inquired that when a party is not in the Parliament then how reserved seats could be allotted to it. Justice Hilali also questioned on what grounds the reserved seats were given to the PTI, when it was neither before the ECP, PHC and even the SC. 'It seems that suomoto kind of notice was taken in this regard.' Justice Mandokhail said that he could not understand that when some candidates who mentioned in their nomination papers, PTI and had its certificates then why after winning the polls joined SIC, which was not in the Parliament. Had they not done so they could have reserved seats for women and non-Muslims in the National Assembly. Justice Mandokhail questioned whether under Article 187 of the Constitution there is any limit in the SC power. Makhdoom said that the election disputes should be treated like civil disputes where the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff. He said that PTI's Women Wing leader application was neither allowed nor dismissed; adding the prayer in her petition was that she be permitted to implead party to assist the Court and not necessary party. Justice Mandokhail said that the presiding officers and returning officers failed to perform their duties in accordance with the law and constitution during February 2024 general election. Should the SC shut its eyes, he asked Makhoom. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Mirror to the rulers
Listen to article Each year, the HRCP's report sparks a familiar ritual: civil society erupts in outrage, the state stays mute and the powerful grow defensive. The 2024 report, however, lays bare a fundamental breakdown in how we govern and treat the public, particularly the most vulnerable. It's a blunt diagnosis of a country steadily unlearning democracy, shedding compassion and settling into repression. The findings are impossible to miss, unless one is willfully blind. From sweeping protest curbs to laws that equate criticism with defamation to rising judicial meddling, dissent is being actively crushed. The 26th Amendment — rammed through in majoritarian fashion — and laws like the Public Order Act and the Punjab Defamation Act aren't one-offs. They're part of a pattern. The message is clear: citizens are no longer seen as participants, but only as problems to be managed. Freedom of expression continues to shrink, per the report. The ban on X drags on like an old wound that refuses to heal. Internet blackouts are now routine whenever unrest brews on the streets. Journalists remain in the line of fire — 162 attacks last year alone. And yet, we still hear official lines about 'restoring order' and 'promoting journalism' as if these were neutral moves rather than calculated muzzling. The rot also extends into the judiciary, an institution meant to curb overreach but itself under strain from both within and without. The HRCP sounds the alarm on a crippling 2.4 million-case backlog and damning claims by judges of meddling and intimidation. The idea of an independent judiciary — something we proudly tout — rings hollow in practice. If judges feel intimidated, what hope is there for the everyday Pakistani seeking justice? Violence, too, is surging. Not just from terrorist attacks but also from actions that blur the line between policing and raw force, with nearly 5,000 suspects meeting their end in police encounters across Punjab and Sindh. Justice now happens at the barrel of a gun. Bursting at the seams with lawlessness and impunity, Karachi records over 47,000 crimes while prisons across the country overflow at more than twice their capacity. These are signs of a society fraying and a system buckling under its own weight. But the decay doesn't stop here. The report shows — as if we needed proof — that Pakistan remains profoundly unjust and perilous for women and children. The numbers are staggering: over 400 honour killings, thousands of rapes, rampant violence and cyber harassment, over 26 million out-of-school children and hundreds of cases of child sexual abuse. These aren't aberrations. They're baked into the DNA of a state that abandons its most vulnerable. When cruelty becomes routine and children and women are so easily discarded, it's like a society tossing its future in the trash. But perhaps the most sobering part of the report isn't a single statistic or law — it's the overall picture: a country where political engineering trumps public mandate, where economic pain is normalised, where ecological breakdown goes unchallenged and where religion is twisted to excuse violence. This is democratic decay! Instead of brushing off the report as mere alarmism, those at the helm would do well to pay heed: the HRCP hasn't attacked the rulers; it has simply held up a mirror to them. If they find the reflection ugly, the remedy lies not in smashing the mirror but in righting the wrongs. A dispensation that leans on force over fairness, coercion over consensus and control over care can't expect to build a just and lasting society. Can repression ever be a foundation for stability? Pakistan doesn't need a harder hand. It needs a softer heart and the courage to put human rights at the centre of governance. And if we continue down this path — prioritising control over care and hard power over human dignity — no economic policy, security operation or political slogan will pull us from the brink.
Express Tribune
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
CB overrules SIC's objection to bench formation
Listen to article The Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the Sunni Ittehad Council's (SIC) objection to the formation of the bench for hearing of the review petitions against the apex court's decision of granting the reserved seats in the assemblies to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). In a short order, the 11-member bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, allowed the live streaming of the court proceedings in the case – also requested by the SIC – and issued instruction to the IT department make arrangements in this regard. The CB dismissed three separate miscellaneous applications of the SIC, including the one pertaining to including Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan in the bench for the hearing of the review petitions. The plea for calling a meeting of the Judicial Commission to nominate new judges to the CB after the Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Aqeel Abbasi declined to sit on the bench, was also rejected. The bench also rejected the plea for withholding the proceedings until decision on the 26th Amendment case. The short order of the court stated that the detailed decision would be issued later. The constitutional bench adjourned the hearing of the case till Monday. The Supreme Court has directed the IT Department to make arrangements to broadcast the court proceedings live. Earlier during the hearing, Makhdoom Ali Khan, the lawyer of the women affected by the Supreme Court's verdict on July 12, 2024 continued his arguments. He opposed delaying the proceedings, arguing that every matter before the CB was linked to the 26th Constitutional Amendment. He argued that in view of the Article 191A of the Constitution and the Practice Procedure Act, the Supreme Court Rules of 1980 did not apply to the CB. On that Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked which rule was not compatible with the new constitutional amendment. Makhdoom Ali Khan replied that the 26th Amendment recognised the jurisdiction of the constitutional bench, while in 1980 the bench did not exist. After the 26 Amendment, the CB would review the case pertaining to interpretation of the Constitution. Arguing against postponing the proceedings until the Supreme Court decision on the challenges to the 26th Amendment, Makhdoom Ali Khan stated that if the application was allowed, it would open the floodgate of the similar pleas in many other cases. It was the court's prerogative to decided which case would be heard and when, adding that no one could dictate the court. Suppose if the court grants this application, then this CB would not be able to hear any other petitions until the 26th Amendment was decided. He also opined that he still considered the current CB as a 13-member bench, and not an 11-member bench, adding that a majority of seven judges would decide on the review. As for the live streaming of the proceedings, he said it was the court's decision and that he had no objection to it. When the judges rose after Makhdoom Ali Khan finished his arguments, SIC lawyer Faisal Siddiqui approached the bench and in a loud voice asked whether the right to rejoinder to the reply had been abolished after the 26th Amendment. Justice Aminuddin Khan told the lawyer that the bench had heard him with great patience and if he had something to add, he could submit it in writing. Makhdoom Ali Khan said that 13-member bench had also rejected the petitions of the SIC. On that Siddiqui directly told Khan that then why the SIC was made party to the case. Justice Mandokhail, while intervening, censured Faisal Siddiqui, saying that Makhdoom Ali Khan was a senior lawyer, and that he should tone down and should not talk directly to him. On that, Siddiqui apologise to the court. He insisted that he should be listened to by the court, adding that if the two dissenting judges did not sign the final decision, its implementation would be difficult, therefore, they should be included in the bench. He further stated that hearing of the 26th Amendment case first would affect other cases before the bench. In fact, he added, every case was linked to the 26th Amendment, therefore, the case should be decided first. Later a short order of the court was announced. It stated that the detailed decision would be issued later. The constitutional bench adjourned the hearing of the case till Monday. The bench directed the IT Department to make arrangements to show the court proceedings live.
Business Recorder
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Reserved seats in assemblies: SC allows live-streaming of proceedings of review pleas
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court allowed live-streaming of proceedings of review petitions on allotting reserved seats in the assemblies to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). The Court, however, dismissed Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) three applications. First, application raised objection on the composition of bench. Second, there should be same numerical strength that had heard the original case; third, that the instant matter be heard after the decision on 26th Amendment. An 11-member Constitutional Bench of the SC, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Thursday heard SIC's applications, filed through senior advocates, Hamid Khan and Faisal Siddiqui. Following the announcement of the short order, Faisal thanked the bench, saying despite the fact his applications were dismissed, he is grateful to the bench. 'Very grateful to you,' he again said. Before rising, Justice Jamal Khan told Faisal that his earlier conduct was unbecoming and unexpected. Faisal replied; 'I am ashamed of it.' After the conclusion of Makhdoom Ali Khan's argument, when the bench announced that they will reassemble after 10 minutes to announce short order. Faisal Siddiqui along with Hamid Khan in a loud voice said; 'Court cannot deny them the right of rebuttal.' The bench then granted him and Hamid Khan the time to rebut the points raised by Makhdoom in his arguments. Makhdoom, representing some MNAs of PML-N and PPP, who were elected on reserved seats, but due to SC's order de-seated, contended that the hearing of review petitions by the same bench under Order XXVI Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 has been taken over by Article 191A of the constitution, adding now this provision will deal in constituting the constitutional benches. He said in view of Article 191A it is not practicable to place the review petition before the same bench that has delivered the judgment. Makhdoom argued that the present bench is not of 11 members, but 13 members. He said all the available judges in the SC were consulted, two judges were not made part of the bench as they had heard this case in the Peshawar High Court, while two judges dismissed the review petitions, therefore, the present bench comprises 11 judges. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
