The signatories to the draft constitution of 1973 included almost all the leading religious bigwigs of the country. There is a clause in that constitution which gives exemption to the president of the country from any criminal prosecution against him and one of our former president against whom there were many criminal cases took full benefit of this clause as long as he was in power.
Our Holy book does not allow exemption to any individual from criminal prosecution if he is involved in any crime and 1973 constitution clearly mentions that no law would be enacted in the country if it goes against any Quranic injunction. Why was this fact ignored while inserting the above mentioned clause in the constitution is not understandable?
Is it not a fact that the first Muslim caliph had said to the people on assuming the charge of his office that he did consider himself as the best of all of them but since he had been entrusted the task to lead them, therefore, they should assist him if he performed well but if he erred somewhere he should be admonished and stopped by them. His emphasis was on the word admonish and stop. Why did this unambiguous and clear cut directive escape the attention of those who inserted the abovementioned controversial clause in the 1973 constitution ?
Was it not the duty of parliamentarians, past and present, to delete this controversial clause from the constitution?
- Latest
- Trending
