Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observed on Wednesday that the Supreme Court just wanted to check transparency in the Rental Power Projects (RPPs) and would make an example out of the case so that in future everyone maintained transparency in every project.
A two-member bench of the apex court comprising the chief justice and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain was hearing a suo mottu case and two identical petitions filed by Federal Housing and Works Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) MNA Khawaja Muhammad Asif against the RPPs. Waseem Sajjad, counsel for former water and power minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, continued his arguments and submitted another Civil Miscellaneous Application of some 127 pages, which according to him was enough to prove the transparency of the RPPs. He submitted some definitions of policy from renowned dictionaries and stated that policy decisions were always made by the cabinet or by the prime minister, while ministers had to assist the prime minister in carrying out policies.
Justice Hussain said that still a policy was supposed to exist, “so please show us that policy”. The chief justice observed that since there was no policy for accountability, nothing could be done in this regard. Sajjad replied that as it was a matter taken up by the federal cabinet, it could be challenged on the floor of parliament but not in court. The chief justice said that was not the case but “we were asking about any black and white policy if it exists regarding RPPs”. Sajjad said there was no single document for the policy, however, there were several decisions of the federal cabinet which were being produced in court. He said further that before his client took the charge of the ministry, four RPPs were decided in a high level meeting by the Pakistan Electric Power Company (PEPCO) and guidelines were chalked out, which stated that rates should be close to the tariff of independent power producers.
He said further that the minister was not the one to determine the tariff, and it was the duty of the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) to set the rates, which approved it at that time and was now wrongly accusing his client.
Upon Sajjad’s insistence that the RPPs were transparent, the chief justice asked him why two parliamentarians had decided to approach the court if the matter was so transparent.
Sajjad replied that the problems with the RPPs still persisted but no one was ready to come to Pakistan because of various reasons, including security issues. He said if there were problems with the line, the minister was not supposed to check it but line staff must be responsible for that. The chief justice expressed dismay at the fact that the national exchequer had incurred huge losses because of the project and questioned Sajjad why his client had not taken action against those responsible for the failure of the policy.
Whose right has NRO verdict impeached, asks SC
Resuming hearing in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) review petition on Wednesday, the Supreme Court asked whose right was impeached or which component of the federation was aggrieved by the NRO verdict. The bench allowed former law minister Babar Awan to appeal on merit on behalf of the federation. During the course of day-long hearing, the bench observed that the review petition scope was limited whereas the federation’s counsel Awan contended that the petition was unique in which the court did not provide a chance to plead. Addressing Awan, the chief justice asked which part of the NRO verdict had adversely affected the federation.
Awan submitted that observance of judicial restraint would support the system otherwise there would a chance of clash between the institutions, adding that the federation believed in protecting the constitution of Pakistan.
Awan contended that the federation’s responsibility included protecting the rights of its citizen, institutions, laws and constitution of Pakistan. He said the federation was not heard in the case, adding that the NRO was a temporary law, promulgated by former president Pervez Musharraf that lapsed after 120 days, adding that the president was part of parliament.
Awan said the accused could not be punished in absentia and that was why closed cases could not be reopened. He said the SC could not direct the federation to reopen cases abroad.
The chief justice said why was the federation interested in supporting a law under which would make it easy for corruption to run rampant, to which Awan said the NRO’s life was over.
This gave rise to a heated exchange of words between Awan and the SC judges.
Awan said the Lahore High Court had given a stay order in tax evasion of Rs 100 billion.
“Babar, we had summoned the FBR chairman and asked him to pursue the cases of tax theft,” Justice Jawwad S Khawaja told Awan and added that the FBR chairman was not an employee of the court. “You should not speak about the matter about which you have no knowledge,” the bench asked Awan. “You should limit yourself to arguing your petition,” he added.
Awan said larger benches had been formed but several cases were not heard, upon which the chief justice asked him to cite a particular case. Awan cited the Asghar Khan case.
“You should not intervene to regulate the case as you are not the chief justice,” the CJP directed Awan.
The CJP directed Awan to complete his arguments before 11am on the next date of hearing and adjourned proceedings until today (Thursday).