All eyes are on the Supreme Court today (Monday) as it is set to hear the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case and decide on one of the six options it laid out in its short order, of which one can possibly be a part of the final verdict, potentially throwing out the government, as Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani is expected to appear uninvited in court to explain his position on the government’s failure to implement the court orders.
A seven-judge special bench headed by Justice Nasirul Mulk will start hearing the case at 9.30am at Courtroom No IV. Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) insiders claim that, like before, Prime Minister Gilani is set to spring a ‘major surprise’ by appearing in court to explain his position, as he had been declared dishonest by the court. A PPP source claimed Gilani had asked some of his cabinet ministers to be ready to go to Courtroom IV at 9.30am on Monday. However, a well-placed source told Pakistan Today on Sunday that the government was planning to seek more time to implement all portions of the NRO verdict and consequent directions, on the grounds that it had started implementation of the verdict, however more time was required to implement all its portions in letter and spirit. He said the government would request the court not to opt for any of the six options, as implementation and execution of the verdict had been started by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) with the arrest of NRO beneficiaries and perusal of 155 cases of the NRO beneficiaries pending in various courts.
On January 10, a five-judge special bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa had laid out six options in its short order in the NRO implementation case that it could take against the willful disobedience of the government in implementing some parts of the NRO verdict and its consequent directions. The court had issued notices to the attorney general directing him to present his arguments to it on Monday after obtaining replies from the government and all concerned about why any of the six options might not be exercised by the court against those responsible for failing to implement the NRO verdict. The court had noted that anyone likely to be affected by exercise of the options could appear before it on January 16 and address the court in the relevant regard so that they would not complain in future that they had been condemned unheard by the court.
The court had also directed the law secretary, NAB chairman and prosecutor general to ensure their appearance in court on Monday. Under the first option, the court may hand down a declaration in terms of Article 62(1F) of the constitution that could affect the prime minister’s qualification to be a member of parliament. The PPP co-chairman (President Asif Ali Zardari) and the law minister also fall in the same category.
Under the second option, the court may initiate contempt proceedings against the prime minister, the law minister and the law secretary for persistently resisting the implementation of the directions in the NRO judgement. This could also lead to disqualification from being elected or chosen as a member of parliament. Under the third option, the court may appoint a commission under Article 187 of the constitution and Rules 1 and 2 of Order 32 of the Supreme Court Rules of 1980 to execute relevant parts of the NRO judgement.
In the fourth option, the court may provide an opportunity to any affected person to be heard before exercise of any of these options. As this option refers to the president’s immunity, it can be interpreted as an opportunity for the court to discuss the legal aspects of the immunity enjoyed by the president.
According to the fifth option, the court may remove the NAB chairman, who had failed to take action against the appointment of Adnan Khwaja as managing director of the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL) in disregard of merit and the promotion of Ahmed Riaz Shaikh as additional director of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) at a time when both of them were convicted. The NAB chairman is also under fire for the bureau’s failure to take action against former attorney general Malik Muhammad Qayyum.
The sixth option focused on the court exercising judicial restraint and leaving the matter “to the better judgement of the people of the country or their representatives in parliament”. In this option, the court conceded that the constitutional balance was delicately poised and insistence on the implementation of the judicial verdict would run the risk of bringing down the constitutional structure, so the court could exercise restraint.
