The Supreme Court on Wednesday provided a breather to Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf in the NRO implementation case and granted the attorney general for Pakistan (AG) two weeks for submitting a reply, asking him to come up with a solution to the pending row between the judiciary and the government on the next date of hearing.
The court also gave the federation an option to file a review petition against its verdict of July 12. A surprise for many, the apex court showed further leniency and hinted that the court only wanted to reopen the cases in Switzerland, keeping an option for immunity cover for President Asif Ali Zardari.
Legal experts, however, think that the leniency shown by the bench might be a tactical move to provide a breather to the new prime minister as the amended contempt law did not approve strong action against the chief executive. A source in the government said the government was expecting a judgment in contempt law case by Friday and the next hearing might be a tough one for Ashraf. Earlier, the Supreme Court had rejected the prime minister’s reply submitted to the court on Tuesday, with a notion that a plea for review of the court’s order should have been filed instead.
The five-judge bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and comprising Justice Amir Hani Muslim, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Justice Ijaz Ahmed Khan and Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, dictated its order after hearing Attorney General Irfan Qadir over the suo motu case regarding implementation of judicial order in the NRO case of year 2009.
The bench in its order observed that bridging the gap between the two state institutions, the executive and the judiciary, was not impossible and asked the AG to bring about a solution to the pending issue.
During the course of proceedings, the AG apprised the bench that he had moved an appeal against the bench’s order of July 12 requesting it to recall its earlier orders in contempt issue, but it was objected to by the SC registrar.
He said he required some time to file the appeal afresh with amendments.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa responded to AG and said, “Why such impression is being created that you would not get time. We both have to swim and sink together, it is our country.” He asked the AG to play his role in sorting out the issue and observed that the court had taken a decision based upon law and there was little room for flexibility, while politicians were trained to make adjustments. He told the AG that no such adjustment was made on the part of the executive. “Solutions are always there, only thinking is required,” he remarked. He told the AG that the court did not intend to send former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani home and reminded him that no action would be taken to damage the country’s system.
Justice Khosa also made it clear that the court’s static position was to write a letter simply to ignore the request of former attorney general Malik Qayyum, while the respondent’s position was that the president enjoyed immunity under the international laws.
“If you have concerns (about the president’s immunity), it is our concern as well as he is our president too and his office requires respect and honor. He enjoys immunity under customary international laws,” Justice Khosa said.
“We have respect for him as president. If you want our help, we will write in decision that he (the president) enjoyed immunity under the international laws,” he added.
He further declared that democracy in the country would not be derailed. “We do not want to derail the system, person or office,” he remarked, asking the AG to play his role in resolving the executive-judiciary row.
The AG in his arguments contended that all the perceptions about the respondent were incorrect and in his view, there were flaws in the NRO judgment.
Neither an officer of the NAB could be issued direction by the court under NRO verdict nor was he answerable to the court, he added.
He pleaded that the court should not take it upon itself the responsibilities of the executive or legislature and every institution deserved the respect which was enjoyed by the judiciary.
Objecting to presence of Justice Khosa in the bench, he said propriety rights demanded that Justice Khosa must recuse, as on February 12, being his friend, he had discussed the NRO case with him.
Justice Khosa negated his contentions and warned him that it would be more damaging for him as it was he who had gone to Geneva twice to prosecute the cases against the PPP leadership.
The AG denied the charge, stating that he had never been to Geneva to prosecute the cases against the PPP leadership. Justice Khosa said that they had no personal interest in the case except in the constitution and institution.
The AG said that it was unfortunate that a PM was sent home illegally. He contended that the bench’s order of July 12 was not in consonance of earlier order.
He said that it was normal that certain judicial orders were passed which could not be implemented.
KK Agha, the NAB prosecutor general, apprised the bench that in respect of Adnan A Khawja and Ahmed Riaz Sheikh, both NRO beneficiaries, the investigation was completed and the issue was placed before the executive board meeting which had approved filing references against both.
About progress on Malik Qayyum’s case, he apprised the bench that he was cooperating with them with submission of certain documents which could not be placed before the bench.
He said the inquiry might be completed and the issue would be placed before the executive board meeting for further decision within four weeks.