- Says whosoever does not accept Constitution should leave politics and law
QUETTA: Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari on Tuesday declared that a Constitutional Court will be established at all costs, warning that failure in this regard would bring about damaging consequences.
“Those who do not accept the Constitution should leave politics and law,” PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari declared while addressing an event organized by the Balochistan Bar Association on Tuesday.
During his address, the PPP chairman criticized the current power dynamics in the country, stating that while Parliament drafted the Constitution, governance is controlled by others.
“I has no involvement in the political developments happening in Islamabad, but everyone must follow the Constitution”, he emphasized.
He questioned, “Do you want decisions to continue while we remain silent?” The PPP Chairman further expressed his opposition to political horse-trading, highlighting his party’s introduction of Article 63-A to eliminate floor-crossing. He also called for further judicial reforms, referencing his father Asif Ali Zardari’s 12.5 years in jail and the injustices suffered by his family.
Bilawal also reflected on the oppressive actions faced by PPP workers during dictatorship eras, pointing to the Charter of Democracy signed by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in 2006 as a key step toward restoring the 1973 Constitution. The PPP leader praised the 18th Amendment achieved through this charter but criticized those currently championing the judiciary without understanding its history.
He lamented how under Chaudhry’s mindset, the judiciary allowed constitutional amendments by military rulers, remarking that after the judiciary’s “freedom,” only those in uniform were allowed to amend the Constitution.
Bilawal questioned why the public elects parliamentarians if lawyers are to make decisions. He acknowledged the dire state of affairs in the country today but reminded the audience of the oppressive eras under previous rulers where speaking out was nearly impossible. He also critiqued the judiciary, questioning whether contempt of court means a lifetime punishment for criticizing a judge, while prime ministers can be removed and constitutional amendments made without challenge.
