Response by Supreme Court to remarks by British envoy Marriot

11 min read

It is with great sadness that we have to report that the Supreme Court has strongly responded to the sharp criticism that the British High Commissioner to Pakistan Jane Marriot made in her speech last month regarding the country’s upcoming nationwide elections in 2024.

The British Foreign Secretary, David Cameron, cited by Marriot, while addressing the Asma Jahangir conference last month, raised concerns about Pakistan’s February 8 elections, quoting the British foreign secretary as a source.

The top diplomat of the British Government had previously expressed concern over the possibility that not all parties would be allowed to participate in the elections, in addition to the possibility that some political leaders might not be able to participate, and that party symbols would not be used.

In addition, she stated that Pakistan’s government, civil society organizations, and global players should contribute to fostering a “vibrant democracy” and “open society”, as open societies encourage transparency among their citizens.

It was stated in a letter drafted by the registrar of the top court to the ambassador that, in view of the fact that the removal of the symbol of a certain political party was a violation of the law, her criticism was unfounded.

The letter, which emphasized the importance of the court’s role, stated that elections had to be held within 90 days of the National Assembly and Provincial Councils’ tenures coming to an end.

There was, however, no election. This was due to the fact that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the office of the then-president Arif Alvi were at odds over who had the authority to announce the election date.

There was a quick resolution of the dispute by the Supreme Court in just 12 days, and general elections were held across the country on 8 February 2024,” the registrar reported.

It has previously been mentioned that many people who would like to become candidates in Pakistani elections would be denied their opportunity to do so due to the Supreme Court’s view that such people are not considered honest or trustworthy (Sadiq and Ameen).

Nonetheless, it was ruled overturned by a larger seven-member bench, stating that it was unlawful under the Constitution and the law, thereby overruling the earlier decision.

It was stated by the registrar that the law enacted by Parliament through the Elections Act, 2017 stipulates that intra-party elections must be held on a regular basis to ensure democracy within political parties, preventing autocracy or even dictatorship within their midst.

In order to ensure compliance with this democratic principle, it states in the law that a political party will not be eligible to receive an election symbol if it does not hold intra-party elections in order to maintain this democratic principle.

“A political party (that was involved in the drafting of this law) failed to hold its intra-party elections as required by law. As a result, the Supreme Court reiterated what the law stipulates,” the letter stated.

As a result, the registrar stated: “…with the utmost respect, your Excellency appears to have been unjustified in his criticism of this decision.”.

On the occasion of the current chief justice’s assumption of office, it is worth noting how the first live broadcast of a case of public importance in Pakistan’s history has been made for the first time ever after the current chief justice took office. In this way, the public, as a whole, was able to view Supreme Court proceedings in their entirety, as well as how decisions were made, with transparency regarding how they were reached. One of the many decisions made by the party regarding intra-party elections and party symbols was broadcast live as one of those decisions broadcast live.

I recently received a message from the British government, in which it stated the following: “I was pleased to see your Excellency continually cite the importance of “open societies” that you said are essential for the functioning of a democracy. A copy of the Supreme Court’s decision is attached as ‘D’ in case you would like to see how vigorously it applied the right to information to itself, as the court recognized the right to information and applied it vigorously to itself.

There is no doubt that continuing to repeat the undemocratic, violent mistakes of the past condemns present and future generations, and perpetuates cycles of violence into the future. “Let us embrace the truth that will set us free, so that we can live a life of meaning and purpose.”

In a letter published in the International Herald Tribune, the top court asked the following questions: “Should the 1953 overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh’s elected democratic government be concealed after over seven decades of cover-up in order to capture Iranian oil? Is it not possible that this could prove therapeutic for both the perpetrator and the victim in the long run? Would not it engender a sense of trust, perhaps a sense of friendship, and a sense of peace? ”

According to what the British government described as ‘Jewish Zionist aspirations’, on 2 November 1917, it wrote to an individual, an individual who was a citizen of the British Empire, informing that it had decided to establish a settler colonial state in response to Jews’ Zionist aspirations. Neither the people of the area who were impacted by this decision nor even those of your own were allowed to vote on this decision. Rather than Parliament deciding it, the British government unilaterally made the decision. It was the Balfour Declaration which laid the foundations for the establishment of the ethnic state on which it was based. In this ethnic state, those who have lived there for centuries are excluded, they are confining in ghettos, they are humiliated, deprived, brutalized, maimed and killed in order to fit in with this ethnic state.”

In order to prevent the slipping into settler-ethnic superiority, let us step back from the precipice. Thousands of children have died, and there are likely to be many many more innocent victims who have perished in unjustifiable circumstances, which is an act of depravity and an abomination. In a statement released by the Supreme Court last week, the court made it clear that we must all stand up for equality, peace, and humanity.

Let’s be honest and acknowledge our past mistakes in the spirit of openness, which your Excellency advocates, and let’s be honest with ourselves. In addition, we must give up the unholy notion of ethnic superiority, and the concomitant humanity that is the result – a humanity that is inferior.”

In addressing past mistakes, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has taken steps to ensure that they do not happen again, and has addressed them thoroughly in order for them not to occur again in the future. It seems reasonable that reciprocity would be acceptable since His Majesty King Charles III has made a point of stressing the need for open societies and democracy, alongside criticism of the Supreme Court decisions made by the Pakistani Supreme Court.

I am writing on instruction from the Chief Justice of Pakistan, who extends to you and the people of your country his best wishes and a sense of longing for openness and democracy,” the letter said, concluding.

Timenews1 provided that news.

You May Also Like

+ There are no comments

Add yours