Vandalism at HC

It remains to be seen whether or not the Chief Justice had the power to stay these proceedings at that stage. Let us assume that he did, and that it was legal, but was it right? In the question of the legality of the President's assuming the position of the Chief Adviser to the Caretaker Government, it is obviously a matter of considerable seriousness and requires clarification. The final interpreter of the Constitution is the High Court, and the opinion of the learned Justices could have finally resolved this issue. On what grounds could the Honourable Chief Justice justify a stay of the proceedings, and with what motive? Bearing in mind the short time of the Caretaker Government's tenure, how could such a delay possibly help the situation? Bearing in mind the manner in which the stay was obtained, with the presence and possibly connivance of senior members of the former government, is it really surprising that such a hue and cry arose, allowing a chaotic mob of people to take out their frustrations by vandalising offices and vehicles?

Who should really take the blame for the incident?