00:00 First of all, you have raised objections to the special court hearing in Tehreek-e-Insaf,
00:04 then to the trial judge, and now to the judge. What do you have to say?
00:09 Look, there are two versions of this. One is the PTI version, and the other is the current
00:15 version of the prosecution. They have the right to raise objections. They have the right
00:20 to raise objections to the judge, or to raise objections to the trial judge. They can use
00:25 their right, but the ultimate decision is not to be taken by the court. Now, whether
00:31 this cipher issue applies or not, it has been subjudiced. I will give my opinion on what
00:36 has been subjudiced. I don't think it will be appropriate. But otherwise, whatever
00:41 they have been doing morally, by waving a piece of paper in the procession, that was
00:45 not right.
00:46 Morally, you said morally, because the lead counsel Salman Safdar Abhi was claiming
00:51 that the Official Secret Act was not applicable to the former Prime Minister and the former
00:56 Foreign Minister. So, this document was declassified according to him. But can this law be applied
01:01 retrospectively, Senator?
01:03 I had opposed the Official Secret Act in the Senate. And I am not in favour of it. But
01:10 how will it be applied in the back door? Today, suppose that despite our opposition, despite
01:17 our objections, this law has been made. But you have to take the incident somewhere else
01:23 before that. The day the incident took place, this law was not there. So, you cannot apply
01:29 any penal law retrospectively, except for the law of NAB. That it had been given the
01:35 effect of 1985. Then in the case of Asfand Yarwali, I don't know what the conditions
01:40 were at that time. In the case of Asfand Yarwali, they said that it can be done. But I think
01:45 that it cannot be done by backdoor. I have my own reservations in that.
01:51 Senator, one of the most important issues, the history of elections is not being settled
01:57 and no one is able to sit. You were also a part of the Election Reform Committee. You
02:02 are claiming to have the authority to give the election date with the support of the
02:07 reform. And today, the Ministry of Law has also given the same opinion to the President
02:12 of Pakistan. What will you say?
02:16 I do not agree with the interpretation of the Election Commission and the Ministry
02:22 of Law. The constitution is valid in this. The law of 1985 is absolutely clear. It is
02:28 the President's right to give the date. And to give the schedule in accordance with that
02:33 date is the right of the Election Commission.
02:35 Sir, how long will this confusion remain? You are one of the legislators, the reformers
02:41 are in the same boat. And you are also saying that the reform is not applicable and the
02:45 authority is of the President. But neither the Election Commission nor the Nigrand government
02:48 nor the Muslim League are agreeing. So, three requests have already reached the Supreme Court.
02:53 If your interpretation of the Supreme Court agrees with this interpretation, then a new
02:57 Ayani Bhoran is being formed.
02:59 A new Bhoran is being formed. And Bhoran is being formed because it has been trying to
03:05 prolong it for 90 days. In any case, this chapter should be closed at this time. Article
03:10 224 is clear. Whatever happened before this, what did not happen, Imran Khan did not do
03:16 well. He broke three assemblies in a year. After that, whatever happened, but at this
03:21 time, the nation should go towards the general election. 90 days have passed. 15, 16, 17
03:26 days have passed. You can count the remaining days. There should be an election within this.
03:31 The schedule should be implemented for 54 days.
03:33 Sir, on the other hand, we are seeing that a basket has been laid for those cases whose
03:38 verdicts have to be given by the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court practice and procedure
03:41 bill's verdict is yet to be given, but the Chief Justice is still going to give a verdict
03:45 on NAB Tarameen. He has expressed this determination. Which decision should come first? Because the
03:49 Chief Justice said that I do not know what the government's position is today. Should
03:53 the hearing be stopped in the light of a dead law? In the past, you have seen that the
03:57 Supreme Court has also seen a clear division on the verdicts of the Chief Justice.
04:01 Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, Justice Muhammad Amin's verdicts also said that until the
04:06 judicial answers are not formed, the Chief Justice's verdicts should be considered
04:10 under Article 184. All cases related to suo moto notices should be heard, but this did
04:15 not happen.
04:16 Look, because of that law, the designated Chief Justice is not sitting. He is not hearing
04:26 the cases. And because until now, that law is holding the field, unless the court sets
04:32 it aside, then I think that it should be heard first and then it should be passed.
04:38 There is one more thing with Maghrib. There has been a practice that when you are close
04:44 to retirement, then very important cases or usually very common cases, they do not touch
04:50 that God forbid this impression should not go that somewhere in a case you have interest.
04:55 Anyway, it is the preference of many Chief Justices that they listen or not listen. But
05:01 usually people avoid going very close to retirement and do not take any cases in that
05:07 way.
05:08 Sir, there are two weeks left for the Chief Justice to go and you are saying that usually
05:13 they do not do it, but more than half of the most important cases are expected to be
05:18 decided, which will have a far-reaching impact on politics.
05:21 Look, the problem will be that the nation will be further divided. The court is divided,
05:26 the nation is also divided, but it will be further divided. Know the reason for that.
05:31 These are very important decisions. Obviously, it has a political impact. And when there are
05:36 cases of political impact, then we do not take it in politics or political parties in this
05:41 way. If it comes in their favor, it is a very good decision. If it comes against them, it
05:46 is a very bad decision. Irrespective of whether it is right or wrong. There is no debate
05:51 about it legally. It is debated about whether it is in favor or not.
05:56 Now look at it from another angle. Now 18-20 days are left. Now suppose in 18-20 days,
06:03 it comes to a decision in 5-7-10 days. The Supreme Court is already divided. And there
06:10 is a very big divide and every child is also seeing this division. So after that, a decision
06:17 comes and after that any review will be filed. It will be filed with the future Supreme Court
06:23 after that. And at that time, your practice and procedure act may or may not be present.
06:29 If it is not present at that time, then all of them will be reviewed. And when the review
06:34 comes, then if these Supreme Court decisions are very important, God forbid, the review
06:39 has started from some other bench, then you will be further divided or not. So that's
06:44 why don't keep the basis of such a division, which has been kept a long time ago, but
06:50 it will be so deep that we may not be able to sit together, may not be able to reach
06:56 any conclusion among each other. So you have to think about these things. Allah has given
07:01 you very big responsibilities and those who have received very big responsibilities,
07:05 their responsibilities are also very big.
