Directing the government to explain in writing by today (Wednesday) how the federation was affected by the verdict that declared the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that no law could be made in the world to protect corruption and looting.
This was observed by a 17-member larger of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry that was hearing the government’s review petition against the apex court’s December 16, 2009 verdict that declared the NRO, promulgated by former military dictator Pervez Musharraf, unconstitutional. The court observed that under the constitution, no political party was the federation. “Does the federation want to protect the people involved in criminal cases by protecting the NRO?” the bench said, noting that the government did not fear the NRO verdict, rather it was afraid of its [NRO verdict’s] effects.
“When no NRO beneficiary came to the court against the NRO verdict, why is the federation defending this stinking black law?” the court observed. The federation’s counsel, Babar Awan, argued that the court had no authority to order reopening of cases abroad. He asked the court to remove the words about Benazir Bhutto from its verdict. He said all political parties benefited from NRO, adding that this law was promulgated by the president under law. The court asked Awan to tell which para of the verdict was against the government. The chief justice remarked that the NRO was a “stinking black law” and the incumbent government improved its credibility by not supporting it. He said the apex court also supported the government by giving verdict against the black law as well as other cases of corruption. Awan submitted that the PML-N government, through its attorney general, wrote letters to the Swiss government in 1999 for reopening of money laundering cases against PPP Co-chairman and President Asif Ali Zardari. Under the law, he said the Supreme Court or any other office like that of the attorney general’s could not issue orders for reopening such cases abroad.
To a court query, Awan said when the hearing of NRO case was in progress, Kamal Azfar, then counsel for federation, had apprehended the interference of GHQ and CIA. He said threats received by Kamal Azfar by Abu Bakar Zardari were of a minor nature. Justice Nasirul Mulk noted that Kamal Azfar had withdrawn his concerns the very next day. Justice Tariq Parvez insisted Awan tell the court in which para of the NRO verdict a single word or content was used against the federation. However, Awan failed to answer the query. The court repeatedly asked Awan to tell where the federation was deprived of its due right by the NRO verdict. However, Awan could not furnish a clear reply, except contending that the federation was not heard properly in the NRO case.
