PM’s contempt verdict tomorrow

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict in the contempt of court proceedings against Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani until Thursday (tomorrow) and directed him to personally appear before it tomorrow to hear the verdict.
A seven-member 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, after hearing prosecutor Attorney General Irfan Qadir and PM’s counsel Aitzaz Ahsan, reserved its verdict.
The court fixed April 26 to announce the verdict and also summoned the prime minister in person. In his arguments, Irfan Qadir contended before the court that no law addressing the contempt of court existed in the country. “No sentence can be announced under the existing contempt ordinance 2003 as it was not adopted by parliament,” Irfan Qadir contented. He said contempt of court ordinance was promulgated in July 2003 and expired in December 2003.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, however, reminded Irfan Qadir that under the same ordinance, the court had given several judgments. Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany asked the prosecutor as to whether those judgments, given under the contempt ordinance, were wrong. Irfan Qadir, however, stated that the court was assisted wrongly in those judgments.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa also observed that even if there was no law available, Article 204 was there. He said the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 was given protection under Article 270. Qadir, however, asked the court to show restrain and save the institutions from collision.
About the court’s 2010 verdict in the NRO implementation case, he said the court announced its 300-page ruling against 8,000 people without hearing them, whereas it put forward only few paras for implementation.
Justice Nasirul Mulk then observed that if there were just a few paras, why had the government claimed implementing most of the verdict. The prosecutor then said the court was misguided. He said the government made false claims to this effect and the court’s verdict was not implemented.
“I will point out the sectors where the verdict was not implemented,” he stated, adding that conflict among the institutions was against the national interest and avoiding such conflicts was his responsibility. He suggested the court to avoid hearing political cases.
Qadir said such matters should be taken in their actual context and not emotionally. The AG said it was the prosecution’s duty to ensure that no one innocent was penalised. During the hearing, he contended that a section of the media was misreporting details of the case and was creating misunderstandings between the government and the judiciary.
Referring to Section 8 (2), he said the court could release orders to stop such reporting.
He said some reports had mentioned Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry as saying that “robbers had been made ministers”.
Qadir said such a statement could not be attributed to the chief justice, adding that such media reports were creating pressure in the case and were trying to influence the court’s proceedings.
Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany asked the AG if he thought the court was being influenced. Qadir then said even if the court was not getting influenced, he found the statements offensive. He again prayed the court to take action against such misleading reports. He said ever since he was made prosecutor in the case, he was presenting his arguments independently, without getting influenced from anyone.
He said there was no evidence which could prove that the PM committed contempt of court and the charge sheet against the PM was baseless.
The AG said the PM would not write a letter to the Swiss authorities for reopening graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari. He said, in case the letter was written, even then the closed cases would not be reopened.
Qadir said the Supreme Court had not directly ordered Prime Minister Gilani to write a letter to the Swiss authorities, adding that the court had taken in its own hands all affairs of NAB. He added that the court should not ignore the fact that NAB had the authority to file an appeal against the NRO case.
Justice Nasirul Mulk then noted that the review plea against the NRO verdict had already been decided, thus no further appeal could be filed. Qadir said when former attorney general Malik Muhammad Qayyum had written a letter for closing Swiss cases, the NRO was in force at that time.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa noted that Malik Qayyum’s letter had led to the closure of Swiss cases. The prosecutor said there was no justification of NAB chairman’s letter without the prior permission of the law secretary.
Concluding his arguments, he said under Article 248, the prime minister enjoyed immunity from court proceedings. He said the court should show judicial restraint and withdraw the case against the PM.
In his rebutting arguments, PM’s counsel Aitzaz Ahsan said the hearing of contempt case (criminal case) and NRO implementation case by the same bench created confusion.
He said the court verdict, with regard to writing of letter to Swiss, should be implemented, but after Asif Ali Zardari left the office of president, adding that writing the letter would cause irreparable loss to the federation.