Yousuf Raza Gilani claims party hindering from stepping down
The Prime Minister of Pakistan Yousuf Raza Gilani has recently stated that his party, the Pakistan People’s Party is hindering him from stepping down from office. The Prime Minister of Pakistan has said that the ruling party of the government of Pakistan
is making requests to him so that he would restrain himself from resigning from his office.
The Prime Minister of Pakistan has been placed in contempt of Court by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. As a result of this decision against Yousuf Raza Gilani, the Prime Minister of Pakistan can be subject to severe consequences that include an order by the
Supreme Court to step down from his office as well as imprisonment.
The Prime Minister of Pakistan has been held in contempt of the Supreme Court of the country because of the fact that he did not obey direct orders of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan had been asking Yousuf Raza Gilani to write to the Swiss
probe in order to re start an investigation in which the President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari had been named as guilty of carrying out money laundering along with Bhutto. However, the signing of the National Reconciliation Ordinance by Bhutto during the
time that the President of the country was Gen. (retd) Pervez Musharraf had put a stop to the investigation.
Despite that fact, the apex court of Pakistan had deemed the NRO as illegal which in effect demanded that the investigation by the Swiss probe be started again. However the government of Pakistan ruled by the PPP had failed to do so as a result of which
the Prime Minister of Pakistan had been asked by the Supreme Court to write to the Swiss probe.
However, the stance of the Prime Minister of the country had been that the President of Pakistan had legal immunity both inside as well as outside the country as a result of which any investigation against Asif Ali Zardari would be illegal. Therefore, the
Prime Minister of the country had not followed the orders of the Supreme Court arguing that it would be unconstitutional to do so.