PM’s fate hangs in the balance

Hearing a case pertaining to the non-implementation on the Supreme Court’s National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) verdict, a seven-member special bench of the apex court neither announced its scheduled ruling on Monday over the defiance of orders by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani by not writing a letter to Swiss authorities, nor did it hint at a date for announcing such a ruling. While hearing the non- implementation on the NRO verdict case on March 29, the special bench had decided
to announce its ruling on April 16 over the non-implementation of its orders by the premier Gilani by not writing a letter, without getting any ones advice, to Swiss authorities for reopening graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.
On Monday, when the special bench of Justice Nasirul Mulk, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Muhammad Ather Saeed resumed hearing into the matter, National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) counsel Shaiq Usmani submitted a reply of the prime minister over the matter, wherein Gilani said he was not aware that Adnan Khawaja was a convicted person prior to his appointment as the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL) managing director. The lawyer said as soon as the premier came to know about Khawaja’s conviction, he removed him from the post. He said the establishment secretary had concealed facts about Khawaja’s conviction from the PM.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa noted that when the PM appointed Khawaja as the chairman of the National Vocational Training Commission (NAVTEC), he might have not known about Khwaja’s conviction, but when he appointed him the OGDCL managing director, he knew well that Khawaja was a convicted person.
NAB’s counsel submitted that investigation against various people was underway.
To a court query, he said the PM might be an accused.
He said despite being summoned repeatedly, former attorney general Malik Muhammad Qayyum, who was abroad, did not come back, thus the investigation had come to a halt. He said, if needed, red warrants for Qayyum would be obtained.
Justice Khosa observed that there would be rule of law and the constitution in the country, rather than that of an individual. The court also rejected an application by PM’s counsel Aitzaz Ahsen in which he pleaded that no decision should be announced in the non-implementation of NRO case until the decision on president’s immunity was announced.
“Let me complete the arguments in the contempt case first, otherwise, my arguments would be of no use after a decision on the NRO is announced,” Aitzaz said.
Justice Nasirul Mulk noted that the PM had also requested to delay the verdict in the NRO non-implementation case.
Aitzaz argued that no decision could be given by the court without properly hearing the accused. He contended that under Article 187 of the constitution, it was the responsibility of the high court to get the apex court’s verdicts implemented. He contended that the apex court could not hear the NRO implementation case.
Meanwhile, the court expressed dissatisfaction over the NAB report and adjourned hearing until May 3.
Earlier on March 8, the court had directed Prime Minister Gilani to write a letter, without getting anyone’s advice and influence of the ongoing contempt proceedings, to the Swiss authorities for reopening corruption cases against President Asif Ali Zardari and submit a compliance report to it on March 21. Later on March 29, the court said it would pass an appropriate order on April 16 against the prime minister for not writing a letter to the Swiss authorities.
In his arguments in contempt of court case on Monday, Aitzaz said the president enjoyed international immunity and Article 10-A, which was about the fundamental rights of the citizens, could not be usurped and the bench could not hear the contempt case against the PM, as it (bench) had taken suo motu notice into the matter and initiated proceedings into it.
Aitzaz said how could we demand Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s release from the US “if we send our president to appear before a magistrate abroad”.
The court then said that an issue of national importance could not be ignored.
Justice Khosa asked Aitzaz whether the court should continue hearing the case until the decision. Aitzaz said, “The state might appeal against it as the court was not competent to hear the case.”
Meanwhile, the court adjourned hearing in the contempt case until today (Tuesday).
Talking to reporters later, Aitzaz said nobody, including the judges, was above the law. He said Zardari enjoyed international immunity as long as he held the office of the president. He said foreign countries did not present their common citizens before any foreign court, so how could we present our president before a magistrate of another country.