Aitzaz feels SC won’t give PM a fair trial

The contempt case against Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani took a new turn on Wednesday after Aitzaz Ahsan, counsel for the premier, objected to the seven-member special bench hearing the matter and sought its recusal.
If Aitzaz’s objection, which according to him is very legitimate and holds purely the legal grounds, is admitted, eight other judges including the chief justice, who had dismissed the intra-court appeal of the premier against the seven-judge bench order, cannot hear the matter.
The total available strength of the Supreme Court judges, including the chief justice, is 16 and if Aitzaz’s plea is admitted, there is no other forum to hear the matter.
The court, however, gave no ruling to the Aitzaz’s plea.
Aitzaz expressed dissatisfaction over the bench, saying that the bench that issued show cause notice and delivered verdict before the case was started, should not conduct proceedings and recuse itself from the case.
He said the bench had already made its mind against the sitting prime minister to be punished, thus it (bench) could not hear the case.
He contended that the bench could not conduct a fair trial, adding that under the 18th Constitutional amendment, Article 10-A has been introduced that has radically changed the scope of law. “It’s a revolutionary change,” Aitzaz said, adding that fair trial and adopting due process of law was essential for a particular case. He elaborated that in criminal trial and even in contempt case, a person is entitled to fair trial. “You mean this bench is not competent to hear the trial,” Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany asked Ahsen. “Yes after the 18th Amendment,” Aitzaz replied.
Justice Osmany, however, told Aitzaz that a bench that framed charges was also competent to proceed further in the trial.
“Trust us, we will be absolutely impartial,” Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa told Aitzaz, adding he should never think “we could go an inch from due course of law”.
Aitzaz replied that he too could not go an inch from the evidences he had submitted before the court. “If you prove the contempt from that evidence, then sentence me instead of pardoning,” Aitzaz contended, adding that the court could not proceed on assumptions as it was a criminal trial and decision be made on evidence submitted before the court.
The bench, however, again observed that it would not move an inch from due course of law and would decide the case impartially. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed that if Aitzaz’s objection over the bench was accepted, everyone would demand that the bench that had issued notice was not competent to conduct the trial.
Aitzaz categorically stated that until Asif Ali Zardari was holding the office of president of Pakistan, the SC order to write letter could not be implemented. He contended that only the prime minister was held responsible for the contempt though former attorney general and former law secretary advised the premier for not writing the letter to Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases against President Zardari.
He said neither he was asking the court to review its’ order, nor the verdict was wrong but the implementation of the relevant part of the order was not possible because the president enjoyed immunity under the international law.
He said former attorney general Anwar Mansoor and former law secretary had sent the advice to the PM, telling him that the president enjoyed immunity and that the letter could not be written. Justice Osmany remarked that the court was never informed about the PM’s view. “Do you want to say that the PM had no malafide intention”, Justice Khosa asked.
Aitzaz said Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq should be standing in the witness box to answer why PM’s comments were not conveyed to the court.
He said the PM’s reply was misunderstood and it was assumed that he (PM) was not sincere in implementing the court’s order. He said when the court disclosed its six options in the PM’s case, it was presumed that war drums had begun to beat and PM got disqualified. Ahsen said the court used harsh words against his client and termed him dishonest to his oath, even without hearing him. Justice Khosa then said the court had not used harsh word against his client.
“If the court had been rigid, it would not have provided you full opportunity to argue in the instant trial,” Justice Khosa said.
At the onset of hearing, Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq submitted before the court that he would not submit any more evidences in the case. He also submitted the reply of the prime minister in response to the court’s earlier order of March 8, 2012. Aitzaz also told the court that he too would not submit any more evidence.
The court then closed the evidence and started proceedings of the trial.
Aitzaz contended that the attorney general, being chief law officer of the federal government, should be presented in the court as a witness instead of a prosecutor, adding that four people were directed to send summaries to the premier in the matter but his client’s response was misconceived.
To a court query, Aitzaz contended that his client never stated that he would not follow the apex court’s orders, adding that the president enjoyed immunity in 198 countries under international law.
During the hearing, an exchange of harsh words took place for several times between Aitzaz and Justice Khosa.
To a query by Justice Nasirul Mulk, Aitzaz said he had the right to raise objection to the bench at any moment, adding that a new bench should be constituted to hear the case and Article 10-A should be followed. Justice Gulzar Ahmed said it meant no court of the country framing charge sheet was authorized to hear the case.
Aitzaz said if the accused deserved to be hanged on the basis of evidence and proof, he should be hanged, otherwise he should be declared innocent; adding that making mistakes was a human phenomenon and the PM was also a human being.
Justice Nasirul Mulk remarked that no slightest deviation from the law would be shown in the matter. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing for today (Thursday).