@@najeebvirk8492 1. There's a world of difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure truth. 2.There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths.
@@voiceofreason83 not wrangling in philosophical discussions about the reality of truth but from the legal point of view what he is saying is true. Panama was a controversial decision. Rather it was a pre-planned decision to oust an elected prime minister on technical grounds.
@@najeebvirk8492 Panama Judgment runs over 2047 pages(including annexures. Some money trail charts require 1x1 meter printouts for analysis). Let us ignore "he says, she says" statements and read 2047 pages for an objective and meaningful understanding and conclusions. 😊
@@voiceofreason83 unm the actual judgement is on 549 pages. One needs not to read entire judgment, which also notes down arguments of both sides but rather operative part is enough to understand. The operative part by which Prime Minister of 220 million people was disqualified is following: “Similarly, the respondent No. 1 (Nawaz Sharif) did not withdraw the salary of AED 10,000. Thus, the salary shown in the Employment Contract in effect never constituted an "asset" for the respondent No. 1……” “ Where respondent No. 1 (Nawaz Sharif) did not disclose his aforesaid assets, it would amount to furnishing a false declaration on solemn affirmation in violation of the law” Thus he was disqualified for not declaring a salary of 10,000 AED which he had never withdrawn. You may read the judgment and quote otherwise if there is any other reason for his disqualification. This was the sole reason. Panama was a managed case where judges were working on the behest of establishment to disqualify Nawaz Sharif. Chief justice jamali is right. This judgment was impossible when seen through lens of law. For reference the 10,000 AED were equal to 2 lac 80 thousands pkr in 2017. So a prime minister was dismissed for not declaring less than 3 lac rupees. This was a joke. Worse than Justice Munir’s decision.
He is a gentleman. But one contradiction in this talk. At the start he says in lower judiciary, 9 out of 10 were honest and in higher judiciary all were honest. And then immediately afterwards he says that military intervention started from Ayub period and decisions were given in favours. Where was honesty ?
کیا یہ وہی جج نہیں ہیں جنہوں نے اپنے گھر سولر سسٹم لگانے کے بعد ۲۰۲۳ میں سپریم کورٹ رجسٹرار کو خط لکھ کر اس بات کا تقاضا کیا کہ کیونکے سولر سسٹم لگنے سے بل کم پوگیا ہے لہذا دو ہزار یونٹ کے مساوی رقم انکو مراعات کے مطابق دی جائے
کامران صاحب جسٹس انور ظہیر جمالی سے جسٹس منصور علی شاہ کے ریزرو سیٹوں کے فیصلے کے بارے میں معلوم کریں۔کہ انہوں نے اس فیصلے کا مطالعہ کیا ہے۔اس بارے میں ان کی کیا راۓ ہے۔ اعجاز شکاگو
At one point of time during of Panama case,this Gentelman suggested that let the matter be referred to the parliament,but some very important political figures present opposed the proposal, he should not have caved in .Had he referred the matter to the parliament, the result could be otherwise.
کامران صاحب قوم کا حافظہ کمزور نہیں افتخار چوہدری کی تعریفیں کرتے نہیں تھکتے تھے آپ گیلانی کے گھر جانے پہ خوش تھے میاں صاحب کی نا اہلی پہ خوش تھے آج آپ کس منہ سے ان کو برا کہہ رہے ہیں
45.47 : Kamran Khan Saheb alas! You expect people's memories so rusty? You were the Chief worshipper of Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry the, and today you are bad mouthing him. Bring him also on the show and put these questions to him. Hear his side of the story too.
اس جمالی نے اپنے اور اپنی بیوی کے نام سپریم کورٹ کے ملازمین کی ہاؤسنگ سکیم میں دو پلاٹ لیے- اسلام آباد میں سی ڈی اے سے دو پلاٹ اس کے علاؤہ تھے جو جج لالچی اور مال سمیٹنے میں لگا رہا ہو اس کی بعد از ریٹائرمنٹ پشیمانی اور لیکچر بے معنی ہیں
