WANT RELIEF? WRITE THE LETTER

The letter has to be written. This was a clear position the eight-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, took without budging from its stance while hearing an intra-court appeal against the seven-member bench order that decided to charge Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani with contempt of court. “If you commit that the letter (to the Swiss authorities) will be written, we are ready to discharge the case,” the chief justice told the prime minister’s counsel Aitzaz Ahsen, who remained non-committal despite all the judges repeatedly saying that the case revolved around the letter, which had to be written. “You may consider it (the letter) the Faisalabad Clock Tower (Ghanta Ghar) that stands straight in front of you no matter which road you take,” Justice Khilji Arif Hussain remarked.
During the almost seven-hour long arguments on Thursday, Ahsen tried to convince the bench to set aside the order of summoning the prime minister on February 13 to indict him for contempt of court, recall the show-cause notice in the interest of justice and suspend the proceedings of the seven-judge bench hearing the contempt case. But the judges did not appear convinced by his arguments. However, the court gave Ahsen a full chance to build his argument and did not show any haste as it decided to continue hearing the case on Friday (today). But Ahsen was asked to complete his arguments before 10.30am. Today, therefore, is the day of judgement – whether the prime minister will be charged for contempt or not. At the outset of the hearing, the court expressed dismay over some points raised in the appeal, which were related to the restoration of the judges giving the prime minister this credit, and directed Ahsen to delete them. The court noted that these questions were tantamount to influencing and ridiculing the court. Ahsen had argued in the appeal that it would be ironic to send to prison a democratically-elected prime minister, who had released the detained judges even before taking oath as the chief executive. The chief justice observed that the judges had taken oath under the constitution and no one was above the law. He said the appeal not only carried some unbecoming points about the judges, but also against their children. “Should we give relief to your client on these grounds?” the chief justice asked.
He said the holder of a constitutional office and chief executive not only put the court in an embarrassing position by raising such points but also perplexed himself. “We are unable to understand how your client compelled you to write such things in the appeal,” the chief justice asked Ahsen. The judges remarked that these questions gave the impression that the prime minister, being an institution, could influence the court. The judges repeatedly told Ahsen that the contempt notice would be discharged if he assured the court that his client would write the letter to the Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari. But Ahsen continued to stick to his contention that he was not supposed to argue about writing the letter or the president’s immunity, instead he was defending his client in the contempt case. Referring to various judgements, he tried to establish that his client had not committed contempt by not writing a letter to the Swiss authorities, as he had acted on the advice given to him by the experts and a summary moved to him by the law secretary and attorney general stating that the cases in the Swiss courts had been abandoned because of lack of evidence, thus writing the letter was a futile exercise. He said his client had a bona fide intention by not writing the letter, thus he deserved to be given the benefit of doubt.
The court noted that this letter not only had to be written to the Swiss government but some other countries as well. Justice Tariq Parvez observed that even if the prime minister was convicted on contempt charges, the letter would still have to be written. To a court query, Ahsen said the president enjoyed immunity not only within the country but internationally as well.
Without naming the president, the chief justice noted that in an interview with Hamid Mir, it was said that the letter would not be written until the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) government was in power. “Is it not disobedience of the 17-judge bench order?” the chief justice asked.
To a query about whether the government had done something to bring back the looted money, Ahsen said Para 178 of the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) judgement, related to opening of Swiss cases, could not be implemented. He said when the cases in Switzerland were abandoned, there was no possibility of bringing back the $60 million.
The chief justice said the court was saying that the person involved in this laundered money was the head of the prime minister’s party. He said the money could be brought back by writing the letter. “The prime minister has certainly been ill-advised,” Justice Mian Saqib Nisar remarked.
At one point, the chief justice noted that the contempt trial of an incumbent prime minister was not an ordinary thing. He said if the prime minister did not want to write the letter, he should remove the judges and bring his party’s men to sit in the Supreme Court.
He said when the prime minister appeared in the trial proceedings every day, what would be the barometer of the stock market? Ahsen contended that the seven-judge bench summoned his client to frame charges, but did not give reasons. Justice Amir Hani Muslim noted that if the bench would have given reasons, it would be harmful for the premier.
To a court query, Ahsen said his client could not reject the summary of the Law Ministry, but the judges did not accept his argument saying that the summary stood as just a proposal and it could be rejected by the premier.
The court rejected a contention of Ahsen’s that the NRO verdict should have been executed by the high court and noted that the apex court had the constitutional authority to get its verdicts implemented on its own. “Do you want that the Supreme Court should leave the premier and the high court should arrest him and punish him?” asked the court.
Ahsen, however, could not reply and asked the court to decide the appeal on merit. The court then appreciated Ahsen’s methodology of arguments and assured him that the appeal would be decided on merit.
The court then adjourned the hearing for Friday (today).