PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues

Voter List --Nadra-- Missing Voter dilemma

(47 posts)
  1. Sharif Aadmi

    Here a few of my colleauges have been discussing (its unfortunate that i couldn't locate the original thread) about IK's petition which is being heard by honourable SC regarding some 30 million fake votes (according to IK) in the voters list.

    For the memory of these honourable friends , i am quoting a judgement of SC

    http://www.hinduonnet.com/2007/08/11/stories/2007081156591600.htm

    This bench was headed by honourable CJ IMC. and following is the interesting part of the judgement.

    "
    At the last hearing, the court said it was unconstitutional to restrict registration of voters to only those who could produce national identity cards and asked the Commission to come up with a method to correct the lists.

    "

    NOw based upon above mentioned judgement , few points arise.

    a) NIC or CNIC is not a requirement
    b) A vote can't be called fake or bogus just because he is not in the NADRA database.

    Further to that , its also interesting to note that

    a) Till now , NADRA has issued on 85M CNIC.
    b) Total population of pakistan is around 180M.

    This is going to be a very fundamental case and it would be interesting to see how CJ IMC adjucates to that keeping in view his previous judgment (mentioned above).

    Posted 3 years ago on 20 May 2011 5:37 #
  2. Discussed previously but from a different angle:
    http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/fake-votes-in-na-55-130000-height-of-corruption?view=all.

    Lets see what courts will do to solve this issue.

    Posted 3 years ago on 20 May 2011 6:20 #
  3. To begin with SC should consider that NADRA itself is responsible being the main culprit; an inept good for nothing organization that failed miserably since its inception and fell for perks/rewards from our corrupt politicians. Result is a missing voters list.

    Khalid Hassan has pointed this out since long in his article:

    When NADRA was established, the first thing that struck everybody was its name, the second example after NAB of the government having picked up a rather unfortunate set of acronyms. NAB has lived up to its name by nabbing those on the establishment’s hit list, rather than bringing to justice the fat cats who have been on the rampage in the Pakistani hencoop. As for NADRA, it is a name more appropriate to an abducted woman from the town of Pir Mahal in Faisalabad or a hoodlum in the back streets of the old city of Lahore than an agency assigned with the task of setting up a national database.

    I do not know who the head honcho is but like most head honchos under this government, it must be a gentleman in uniform or one who was in uniform until recently. Whoever he is, he should know that something is very seriously the matter with his empire. Several of its computers are absent without leave. For instance, if you go to the NADRA website and click the link ‘Apply Online for NICOP/POC,’ the message thrown back at you says: ‘Apply Online Section is down for maintenance. Please visit later.” “Please visit later” is like being told by a person who owes you money, “The cheque is in the mail.”

    Some years ago, it was announced that Pakistanis settled abroad, who had taken foreign citizenship, could apply for a Pakistan Origin Card by filling in a form and submitting it with $100 to the nearest Pakistani embassy, which would pass on the application to NADRA (not Lady Naipaul, I clarify), and a POC card — good for seven years — would follow. Great idea but is it working?

    The experience of one Pakistani lady, whom I will only identify as Ms BJS, is illustrative of what happens to some who apply for a Pakistan Origin Card (POC). The applicant is assured that all that is required of him or her to establish a claim is “at least one proof of Pakistani origin”, no more. The form itself requires only those applicants furnishing information about a “living Pakistani relative” who are claiming Pakistan origin “only on relationship basis”.

    Ms BJS, who was born inside Texali Gate, Lahore, and who has lived in the United States for the last 30 years, applied for a Pakistan Origin Card in December 2005. She fulfilled all requirements, including furnishing “at least one proof of Pakistani origin”, which she did in the form of a copy of her Pakistan passport. After several months, when she inquired when her POC would be issued, she was told informally — but not in writing — by the Pakistan embassy in Washington, where she had made the application, that her papers had been found “incomplete” by NADRA.
    After some running around, she found that the “Facilitation Cell, SRC Directorate (NICOP Dept), NADRA headquarters, Islamabad” had objected that Ms BJS had not provided her NIC (National Identity Card) number. There is no such requirement laid down in the application form, and in any case, Ms BJS could not have provided an NIC number for the simple reason that she had never had an NIC. So this is the sort of shoddy work that NADRA is doing. Ms BJS is a graduate of the Punjab University and she took her MA from the University of Dhaka, studying under such teachers as Andleeb Shadani and Hanif Fauq. Her brothers and other members of her family, including her children, are all settled in the United States. She was asked to “send a copy of NIC herself (if held) along with Number of copy of CNIC/NIC of Father/Mother/Blood Relative so that her case may processed (sic) on priority (sic).” There is absolutely no such requirement listed on the application form, so may one ask NADRA: What on earth’s goin’ on?

    My own inquires have shown that NADRA’s work, at least in its dealings with overseas Pakistanis, is poorly supervised. Mistakes in PIC or NICOP cards issued are rampant. Names are misspelt and dates got wrong. It is not uncommon to be issued a card, which shows American cities as being located in the United Kingdom and British cities as being located in the United States. The sort of objection which was placed on Ms BJS’s application is common. This is a crying shame and although I have no illusions that anything printed in the press changes anything in Pakistan, one writes about such things out of habit.

    I have serious objections to the POC form devised by NADRA’s geniuses on several grounds. First of course is the column on religion and the Zia ul Haq-ordained declaration about who is a Muslim and who is not, a matter which lies in Allah’s domain alone. Column 22 states, “In case of a State Subject of Jammu and Kashmir (please shade the applicable box) AJK, Migrant from Kashmir Valley, Migrant from Jammu and others.” This is horrendous. It has been Pakistan’s position from day one, both at the United Nations and everywhere else that the former State of Jammu and Kashmir is a single indivisible entity whose future remains to be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State and in accordance with UN resolutions. Why has NADRA divided the State of Jammu and Kashmir into three parts and, with that, its people, the Kashmiris? I, for example, am a State Subject, having been born in Srinagar, but belonging to Jammu, and I consider myself and am considered by the Government of Pakistan as a person originating from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which the United Nation has declared to be a disputed territory. Does the breakdown of the people of Jammu and Kashmir in three different segments indicate a change of policy on the part of the present Government of Pakistan? An immediate clarification is essential and the present NOC and similar forms have to be withdrawn immediately and rewritten. Period.

    And, yes, another ridiculous question asked of the applicant is: “Has any of your parents/grandparents ever been a citizen/national of India or Israel?” Before 1947, everyone was a citizen of India, so what is this question meant to find out? Sixty years after independence, is this an attempt to differentiate between those who were or whose parents came to Pakistan as refugees? If Gen Pervez Musharraf was asked this question, he would turn out to have been an Indian citizen at birth and would probably be denied a POC, were he at some point to apply for one, not that he is going to.

    What I find shocking is that this form, with its politically dangerous and highly improper implications, was approved by the government. Question: Who approved it and on what basis? Meanwhile, Ms BJS’s Pakistan Origin Card should be issued immediately. For reference, her application No is 840E2343, dated December 7, 2005, Receipt No 000027344, forwarded by the Embassy of Pakistan, Washington.

    Khalid Hasan is Daily Times’ US-based correspondent
    This entry was posted on Sunday, June 25th, 2006 at 3:03 pm.
    http://www.khalidhasan.net/2006/06/25/clueless-nadra-and-its-shenanigans/

    Posted 3 years ago on 20 May 2011 6:57 #
  4. salaudin

    Further to that , its also interesting to note that

    a) Till now , NADRA has issued on 85M CNIC.
    b) Total population of pakistan is around 180M.

    CNIC is issues for the citizen aged 18 and above. The total population of Pakistan, above 18, might be more than 85M but surely is not 180M.

    Posted 3 years ago on 20 May 2011 7:27 #
  5. Sharif Aadmi

    salaudduin

    R all the 180 M registered in NADRA record?

    Posted 3 years ago on 21 May 2011 7:46 #
  6. Sharif Aadmi

    My personal experience with NADRA

    Last month i was in khi and had to get police character certificate for one of my realtives.

    I went to Police station and produced orginial CNIC and passport but the gave me a list of docs which included

    E_SLIP by NADRA.

    I asked whats it. They said that go to NADRA and they will issue u this immediately.

    I went to NADRA Nazimabad office and they refused that we don't issue but our franchize issue it. (Interesting to note)

    Then i visited a franchize which had network and went to another and got a 2.5*5 inch slip.

    What this slip had.

    Name of person
    Father of Person

    Is this on NADRA database ? yes/no

    I think that speaks of NADRA's autenticity.

    NADRA was formed around 96/97 and its first major task was to computerize the data of all nationals based on census of 1998. I still remmber furnishing 2 forms in that census one of which was for NADRA.

    After 15 long years of that exercize , even now , NADRA can't claim that it has record of all citizens.

    Posted 3 years ago on 21 May 2011 7:57 #
  7. Sharif Aadmi

    This issue of fake votes is being discussed by few respected members again but they haven't shared their oponion on this thread. wondering why ?

    Posted 3 years ago on 13 Oct 2011 18:50 #
  8. safshan

    the fake votes were included by dictator mushi dog and with that list he gave zaani khan one seat in 2002 elections and with these fake votes he was thinking to form govt. of ppp, q-league and mqm.

    by next elections general pasha will no more be in office and we will see ppp will be wiped out and zaani khan will get only one seat from mainwali...

    hahahah to our pakistan tehreke internet kiddies

    Posted 3 years ago on 13 Oct 2011 19:35 #
  9. Sharif Aadmi

    safshan

    i appreciate your point of view but lets stick to the topic.

    My point is pretty simple that these votes were never fake in the light of above mentioned SC verdict rather these votes were included in the list on the directions of SC. So , how come these votes being called fake ? isn't contempt of court ?

    Posted 3 years ago on 13 Oct 2011 20:45 #
  10. saladin89

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 0:33 #
  11. saladin89

    By: Terence J Sigamony | Published: April 01, 2011
    nation.com
    SC questions validity of past elections

    ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered correction of electoral rolls and disposed of a petition regarding 37.8 million bogus voters on the assurance of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) secretary that all bogus entries in the electoral rolls would be duly eliminated.
    A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and comprising Justice Mohammad Sair Ali and Justice Ghulam Rabbani was hearing the case of 37.8 million fake voters on the electoral rolls of various constituencies.
    The chief justice asked the ECP secretary on whose behalf bogus entries were made in the electoral rolls and on what basis the bye-elections are held in the presence of bogus votes.
    Secretary Ishtiak Ahmed Khan informed the court that the ECP has chalked out a plan to delete the names of all those fictitious persons who are not on the record of the National Database and Registration Authority (Nadra). He said that under the direction of the Chief Election Commissioner, the ECP has been making efforts for the past one year in collaboration with Nadra to prepare fresh, accurate, computerised electoral rolls on the basis of Nadra’s database pertaining to issuance of Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs) to all citizens of Pakistan above the age of 18 years. He said earlier CNIC was not mandatory for the registration of voters.
    He said they have completed the first phase and Nadra has provided verified and augmented data pertaining to the 2007 electoral rolls that contains variances in terms of errors, multiple and bogus entries. Nadra has pointed out that out of total 81.2 million voters registered in 2007, only 44.02 could be verified, which means the remaining over 37 million were dubious.
    Justice Sair Ali remarked: “I cast my votes in several elections and today I am feeling that I was cheated by the ECP.”
    Ishtiak said in the second phase that would start from June, a door-to-door campaign would be launched for the registration of voters and in the third phase a verified list would be published.
    Afnan Kundi, counsel for Nadra, told the court it was responsibility of his the Authority to issue every Pakistani citizen, who is 18-year-old, a CNIC. He said that Nadra has registered 90 per cent Pakistanis and issued 81.59 million CNICs across the country including Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. Justice Ghulam Rabbani said according to rule 17 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, it was the duty of the ECP to update the rolls.
    According to result of verification of electoral rolls-2007 made by Nadra, as many as 15,028,808 voters were registered in electoral rolls-2007 without identity, 2,140,015 CNICs were invalid, 2,491,090 duplicate CNIC entries, 6,469,310 duplicate manual NIC entries, while 11,056,775 manual NIC did not exist in Nadra database.
    Ali Zafar, counsel for the petitioner Mubashir Luqman, argued that in the late Benazir Bhutto case, the Supreme Court has given direction to the ECP to remove the bogus votes. He said there should be harmony between the figures of Nadra and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
    The court after hearing the arguments disposed of the case.

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 0:34 #
  12. Sharif Aadmi

    whats this saladin ?

    Would u please bother to elaborate ?

    Were these votes not included by the order of honourable SC of Pakistan ?

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 0:36 #
  13. saladin89

    Go through the videos u will get some information........

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 0:38 #
  14. Sharif Aadmi

    Sorry gentleman ,

    Your last msg and my last msg were posted at almost same time so please ignore my last msg plz.

    NOw coming to point, Honourable SC of Pakistan held in 2007 that NIC is not mandatory to be listed on the voter list and directed ECP of pakistan to include those votes into electoral rolls which had been excluded from rolls on the ground that those votes (approx 30 m ) at that time couldn't be verfiied through NADRA records.

    Now, considering that verdict (a verdict of SC is law of land) , the rolls of 2007 were perfectly valid.

    NOw , in 2011 , SC of pakistan ( a larger bench , i assume ) has over ruled that verdict so this will have effect from now onwards as till the new verdict, previous verdict of SC was law of land.

    Hope this explains the situation.

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 0:45 #
  15. saladin89

    @sharif aadmi

    So are u agreeing that 45% were bogus votes?

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 1:07 #
  16. Sharif Aadmi

    saladin89

    NOt at all.

    Where did i say that ? I said that those votes were totally valid as per verdict of honourable SC of Pakistan.

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 1:10 #
  17. Shirazi

    What happened in Sahiwal yesterday? Again fake voters had a party and genuine voters spent their day blogging? Bloody internet.

    :)

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 1:14 #
  18. saladin89

    @safshan

    u are really confusing me, i request other PTI supporters to make sense of all this. My brain is overloaded at this moment.

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 1:17 #
  19. Shirazi

    Take a chill pill bro, must be after shocks of yesterday's bye-election.

    :)

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 1:21 #
  20. saladin89

    I never knew there were any bye-elections yesterday, need to look into it.

    Hope the jaali vote machinery wasn't in use!

    45% jaali last time round this time it will go to astronomical numbers....

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 1:26 #
  21. Sharif Aadmi

    saladin89

    let me give u an example

    At this time , required age of voter is 18 yrs. Elections are held now according to current lists with voters of 18 , 19,20 yrs included.

    After 3 yrs , parliament decides to alter the age of voter to 21.

    Would u call these rollss bogus or elections fraud ?

    Noooo.

    Why

    Because as per current law , they are valid voters and if a law is subsequently changed ,it won't impact today's position.

    Similarly, those votes which were there in lists (rather were included on explicit orders of SC ) were totally valid votes .

    Hope it makes the point easier for u to understand.

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 1:28 #
  22. ExPosed

    @saladin89

    There was no PTI candidate in these by elections. These are BS lies of PMLn's rana sana and Ahsan Iqbal who were exposed in the media today.

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 1:29 #
  23. salaudin

    @Sharif Aadmi
    I do not really know what part you don't get. Even if we were to assume SC's verdict was the way you said it was, we have new one which states that bogus votes needs to be eliminated and new voters needs to be included.
    So, what is the misty for you ???

    Why did SC allow people without NADRA card in 2008 is something you need to ask SC but my take is that no one should be allowed without CNIC or Computerized Passport to vote.
    In Canada, people need to show the proof of their citizenship PLUS a valid photo ID (as a proof of their address) to cast a vote. Why cannot we have the same system in Pakistan.

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 9:16 #
  24. siddiqi73

    @saladin89,

    hehehehehehe, quit being naughty bro....not only did you not know that there was a by-election, but your little puny drawing room party was not only secretly supporting the joint candidate of PPP and PML (Q) but had also fielded an independent candidate to further divide the votes. Alas, all the conspiracies fell flat their faces.

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 9:31 #
  25. saladin89

    Are u being serious 24/7, there was no candidate on behalf of PTI, and when there is u will know about it. The only reason I did not know about it because there was no candidate running on behalf of PTI. Keep the on dreaming bro, just like your lousy hukumran who are lieing so are u.

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 9:35 #
  26. saladin89

    @sharif aadmi

    let me give u a fact. 45% jaali bogus votes did take place and PPP AND Pml N benefited millions of millions of rigged votes.

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 9:37 #
  27. siddiqi73

    Saladin,

    You will be beating this issue to death without fail and yet your leader and his tanga party will be contesting on the same voter list come next elections.....you can count on the fact that we will not let him run away.

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 9:49 #
  28. Sharif Aadmi

    Saladin

    Meeray piyre bahi

    "
    Even if we were to assume SC's verdict was the way you said it was, we have new one which states that bogus votes needs to be eliminated and new voters needs to be included.
    "

    a) U need not to assume , the SC verdict was very clear in 2007 and reference is given above. IF u have any doubt about that , u can check with legal faternity.

    b) The new verdict of SC is applicable from the date of new verdict, u can't call previous elections or voters bogus on the basis of this verdict.

    "

    Why did SC allow people without NADRA card in 2008 is something you need to ask SC but my take is that no one should be allowed without CNIC or Computerized Passport to vote.
    "

    c) I accept all verdicts of SC . the previous vedict was as good as this new one.

    d) Your or mine take doesn't matter. SC verdict matters.
    BTW , can u tell me that how much percent of pakinai masses have CNIC or passport ? i m sure not 100 % .

    e)
    "
    In Canada, people need to show the proof of their citizenship PLUS a valid photo ID (as a proof of their address) to cast a vote. Why cannot we have the same system in Pakistan.
    "

    Do we have as good systems as Canada. I live in austrlaia, and there driving license is as good as CNIC. Do we have such good systems ?

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 10:39 #
  29. salaudin

    @Sharif Aadmi
    So your argument is that the 2008 elections should not be called fraudulent ?

    From the link posted in your first post, this is what i got

    At the last hearing, the court said it was unconstitutional to restrict registration of voters to only those who could produce national identity cards and asked the Commission to come up with a method to correct the lists.

    Following the directive, the Election Commission decided to do away with the requirement of national identity cards for registration and decided to launch a new door-to-door drive for enrolment.

    So the SC still asked the commission to "correct the lists" !!!
    What point are you arguing here for ??

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 11:34 #
  30. salaudin

    Do we have as good systems as Canada. I live in austrlaia, and there driving license is as good as CNIC. Do we have such good systems ?

    I do not know about Australia but in Canada, a driver's licence is NOT the proof of citizenship hence not equivalent to CNIC. You still need to produce an evidence as a proof that you are a citizen.

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 11:37 #
  31. Sharif Aadmi

    salaadin ,

    if u bothered to visit the link provided , it said.

    "
    he Supreme Court of Pakistan on Friday set the Election Commission a month’s deadline to include 30 million persons in revised electoral rolls after complaints that they have been left out.
    "

    So , it was SC who ordered the inclusion of those 30 million votes excluded on the basis of NADRA verification.

    By mentonoing Australian DL , i meant that our systems are not as good as Australian or candadian , so those examples don't apply.

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 12:39 #
  32. Sharif Aadmi

    saladin89

    let me give u an example

    At this time , required age of voter is 18 yrs. Elections are held now according to current lists with voters of 18 , 19,20 yrs included.

    After 3 yrs , parliament decides to alter the age of voter to 21.

    Would u call these rollss bogus or elections fraud ?

    Noooo.

    Why

    Because as per current law , they are valid voters and if a law is subsequently changed ,it won't impact today's position.

    Similarly, those votes which were there in lists (rather were included on explicit orders of SC ) were totally valid votes .

    Hope it makes the point easier for u to understand.

    Did u get this example ?

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 17:48 #
  33. salaudin

    The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Friday set the Election Commission a month’s deadline to include 30 million persons in revised electoral rolls after complaints that they have been left out.

    They should include 30 million who were left out but where does it say that there were no bogus votes ?
    I still do not know what point are you arguing here for ?
    Having to include 30 million does not mean there were no bogus votes !!!

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 17:55 #
  34. saladin89

    @sharif aadmi
    I do not understand the point u are trying to make either, could u give another example.

    let me make it clear 37 million votes out of 80 million were found fake while more than 35 million are not registered either, over which the Supreme Court has issued verdict

    Now what is your point?

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 17:57 #
  35. Sharif Aadmi

    saladin,

    This verdict has come in april , 2011 so doesn't apply to rolls in 2008.

    i repeat my example now.

    in 2008 , voter age was 18. Now , NA , the competent authority changes the age to 25 , that would mean that a few million (assume 5 million) votes become would become in-eligible . Would u call these votes/voters fake ?

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 18:31 #
  36. ChangeIK

    @SA,

    You are textbook example of a sophist - a person who uses or abuses logic and reason for evil ends.

    You have tried hard to prove why fraudulent and fake elections of 2008, held under the black law of NRO and on fake voter lists, were legitimate, because you consider yourself as a spokesperson for the corrupts.

    You deserve whatever I have said above. You are a meethy churi - a soft front for the corrupts and the evils of our society. You deserve heaps of contempt.

    Now let me destroy your legal gymnastics.

    ECP, on the basis of NADRA database, which is a very accurate computerized database, estimated that around 37 million votes are fake and bogus in the previous electoral rolls. This was not vague - it was clearly mentioned that these fake votes did not belong any living person, fake addresses were registered, dead people were registered etc.

    Supreme Court of Pakistan has decided to support the above assessment and has given orders to ECP to correct the voter lists. This makes the previous voter list fraud and bogus, as per Supreme court, which makes the 2008 elections null and void.

    As for 2007 decision, in LIGHT Of the current decision, that decision was WRONG. By virtue of declaring the said votes as bogus in the new decision, SC has admitted its erroneous judgement in 2007. The elections CAN be declared null and void in retrospect and a mid-term elections can be held.

    SC can declare the 2008 polls as bogus simply based on NRO alone.

    Apart from that, what about morality and ethics? Since we know now that a huge number of votes were bogus, by simply following simple democratic norms, we should be asking a new mid-term election based on new, corrected voter lists. But of course, a sophist like you has little to do with morality and ethics.

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 19:14 #
  37. Sharif Aadmi

    emotional ChangeIk,

    your personal remarks reflect your family background and upbringing

    SC verdict can't have retrospective effect.

    The elections of 2008 were held as per law of land and according to which CNIC was not a requirement.

    So , if law of land has changed now (by virtue of SC verdict) , how does it effect the legality of an event which has occured in past ?

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 19:28 #
  38. Sharif Aadmi

    Btw,

    If someone can't hear other party's argument and respond to that logically , he should refrain from indulging in any discussion.

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 19:30 #
  39. siddiqi73

    Logically that person ought to be covering something really "valuable" with both his hands since "that" person is in Bannu right now ;)

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 19:39 #
  40. ChangeIK

    @Sharif Aadmni,

    I know very well the family background - or LACK thereof - of people like you are the mouthpieces of corrupts. Your upbringing is clearly reflected in your having no shame to stand up for fraud. It seems your upbringing involves the beneficiaries of this corrupt status quo.

    I will fully expose your (lack of) family background next time you talked about mine, you cry baby.

    To return to the issue, the fraud elections of 2008 were NOT held under the law of the land. They were held when Supreme Court Judges were under HOUSE ARREST, when a fake Dogar Court was in effect. On this very basis, the elections can be considered null and void.

    The Supreme Court can VERY WELL apply the decision retrospectively. The EVENT of 2008 elections occurred in the past, but the GOVERNMENT resulting from that elections is affecting Pakistan AT PRESENT, when the electoral rolls of 2008 have been declared bogus. So while legal legitimacy of this government (considering only fake votes issue, and not NRO, Judges under house arrests - two issues which are enough to disqualify the elections) can be accepted UP TILL this new decision, no such legitimacy need exist AFTER this decision. New elections should be held.

    It is because of paid lawyers and beneficiaries of the corrupts like Asma Jahangir (she is not paid, but beneficiary) and others, that the Supreme has been under so much pressure to take real bold decisions. However, legal basis exists for those.

    I have destroyed your sophistry - you stand undressed.

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 19:42 #
  41. saladin89

    @ChangeIK

    you have absolutely bamboozled him, however he is still not aware to the fact what has just happened.

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 19:53 #
  42. Sharif Aadmi

    ChangeIK

    U started the personal attack and when responded, mirchi kiyon lagi haai. chill out. Hold off to personal attacks, the discussion had been to the point till u started personal attacks. So refrain from it.

    If u speak of PCO judges ,IMC himself took oath under PCO and also speak of 2002 elections which were contested by IK and he won a seat there.

    Also speak of referendum of april 2002 , which was held under PCO (not under constitution) and was supported by IK and his baby internet party.

    Now coming to NRO , NRO was issued by a unfiromed general (Mush) and negotiated by another uniformed general(Kiyani) , so speak against them.

    Now , your assumption of SC can hold it valid from previous date, please go to court and seek the remedy. Till then , its your desire and nothing more.

    Again ,till the SC declares its previous verdict as nullified with effect from previous date , that verdict of 2007 was law of land till april 2011 and provides all the legal ground for 2008 elections and its resultant governments.

    For your kind memory , it has been quite consistent view of SC that CNIC and previously NIC is not a requiremtn for voting. This view was taken in previous elections of 88 , 90 's .

    Posted 3 years ago on 14 Oct 2011 20:05 #
  43. ChangeIK

    @SA,

    I stated facts. You are a front for the corrupts. You are a little Babar Awan.

    Mirchi mujhe nahi lagti, mein mirchi lagata hon. If you dare talk about the family background of anybody, you will be told yours and shown the light of the day.

    "Baby internet party"? You have finally come to your level. And that's what I wanted. To lift your garb, and to expose the ugliness that lied beneath. This "baby internet" party will wipe out the fathers of corruption and loot in Pakistan that you so sneakingly support.

    I am NOT talking from the perspective of PCO judges, to bust your bubbles. I am simply noting a fact. The SC has corrected their decision, admitted their fault in the decision in 2007. Thus while 2008 elections could be legally held as legitimate (just on voters issue, though they are invalid due to NRO and judges under house arrest), new elections ought to be held AFTER the current decision which states 37 million votes are bogus, fake, jali.

    NRO was introduced by Musharraf and Kayani - but your favorite corrupts, whom you want to be given repeated chance to loot Pakistan - the likes of Benazir and Zardari - BEGGED for that NRO, involved international powers to broker the deal, and benefited from it.

    While their brother in corruption, Nawas Sharif, has been silent on the issue.

    I will condemn the CORRUPTS because they chant democracy, and in democracy, if we are to believe Pakistan is a democracy today, civilian leaders, Prime Minster, President, Cheif Minister, have powers. These corrupts cannot enjoy governments but have no responsibility at the same time.

    SC has struck down NRO, therefore, the elections, general elections and presidential elections are invalid by definition. Why SC is not taking such bold decisions is simply because bad fishes among the lawyers, the media, and yes - the social media too, but that is another issue.

    As for referendum, I don't know what that got to do with the discussion at hand. We can go all the way back to Zia-ul-Haq's time, and see who were his illegitimate political offspring.

    There is a little technicality here. Parliament ratified first PCO by 17th amendment, while the Nov 3 PCO has not be ratified. Thus the elections of 2008 are absolutely, categorically invalid, null and void.

    But yes, the referendum of 2002 was unethical and immoral. Get SC to declare it invalid, I will support this.

    Imran voted in it, but then apologized! Not after ten years, only after a few months - point to be noted.

    Posted 3 years ago on 15 Oct 2011 5:41 #
  44. ChangeIK

    "For your kind memory , it has been quite consistent view of SC that CNIC and previously NIC is not a requiremtn for voting. This view was taken in previous elections of 88 , 90 's . "

    You are in total confusion here. SC has not just enforced CNIC requirement now, SC has declared 37 million votes as BOGUS!

    This is not about technicality alone, but the destiny of the nation. Those ruling us have no mandate if this amount of votes are invalid. Thus while the 2008 elections can be held legitimate based on SC's previous decision, it can call for the new elections now when it its now clear that 2008 elections were held on fake voter lists.

    And I mentioned something about basic ethics and democratic values, which went over your head.

    The elections of 2008 are invalid on two other fronts - elections were held when Dogar Court and NRO were in effect, both of which have been struck down by the SC.

    Moreover, the government of today has lost its illegitimacy by being the curse for Pakistan on each and every issue.

    Posted 3 years ago on 15 Oct 2011 5:49 #
  45. mariabashir

    For the 1st time I ve registered my self in the voting list thanks to CJ .

    Posted 3 years ago on 15 Oct 2011 6:55 #
  46. Sharif Aadmi

    ChangeIK

    Declared bogus ? on what ground ? because these votes are not in nadra database. and and entry in NADRA database was not reqruied prior to April 2011.

    About NRO

    Go to GHQ and ask for the head of ex & current COAS who issued and negotiated NRO.

    Dogar Court , whats about elections in 2002 and illegal referendum of April 2002 in which "future of pakistan" was participant ? Were not those held under illegitimate PCO courts ?

    Posted 3 years ago on 15 Oct 2011 11:41 #
  47. ChangeIK

    @SA,

    On what basis can YOU declare any unverified votes as legtimate? Hey, if someone goes to courts claiming that so and so land belongs to him, and therefore he should be given its possession, what would the court ask? Ask for the appropriate documentation, right? Or can a person just make an excuse that he has lost his documentation and/or no registry records exist somehow? No such excuse can stand.

    FYI, the new votes which are getting verified belong to the over 30 million youth votes which were not there in the first place. Ever since the age restriction was changed the voter lists have not been updated.

    So the new votes included are not the unverified votes getting verified now - those votes have been rejected for the most part.

    About NRO, NAME THE POLITICIANS who were involved in the deal, will you? Or do you have no courage to?

    About Dogar Court, these courts were set up by Musharraf and the real judges were house arrested. In 2002, this situation did not exist - majority in the SC, wrongly or rightly, under pressure or otherwise, ratified the 1999 emergency. Later, the parliament of 2002 ratified the 1999 emergency. Both of these things did not happen with regards to 2007 emergency. The two situations are not legally identical.

    As for referendum, this is another issue. Imran voted in it based on the promises of true democracy made by Musharraf, but he was mistaken. He apologized later on.

    Posted 3 years ago on 16 Oct 2011 14:45 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.