Won’t write to the swiss, PM tells SC

Disobeying Supreme Court orders, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani on Monday refused to write a letter to the Swiss authorities for reopening graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari and suggested that being a matter of grave public concern, the issue be sent to parliament.
Earlier on March 8, the court had ordered the prime minister to write a letter, without getting any advice and influence of the ongoing contempt proceedings against him, to Swiss authorities for reopening graft cases against President Zardari and submit compliance report along with his (Gilani) written statement on March 19 or personally appear on March 21 to get his statement recorded over the matter.
In response to March 8 order, the prime minister submitted before the court his 24-page written statement on Monday stating that the president, being head of a sovereign state, had immunity in both criminal and civil jurisdictions of all other states under the international law. He said he believed that this immunity to
be absolute and inviolable, even though it persisted only during the tenure of the office.
He said this immunity vested in the office, not in the person and it represented the sovereignty and independence of a country as well as its sovereign equality with all other states, howsoever strong and powerful. He said he thought it wrong to subject the constitutionally elected incumbent president to the authority of a magistrate in a foreign country. “I think this subjection should be avoided”, he added.
He submitted that in view of Article 10-A, the judges who decided to initiate the prosecution, especially those who passed the pre-trial order on January 10, 2012 casting serious aspersions against him (Gilani), should avoid sitting in trial and judgment.
Gilani, who was indicted on February 13 for contempt of court, after he had pleaded not guilty to the charge that could see him jailed for six months and disqualified from the office at least for five years, reminded the court that it had itself listed six options, in its January 10, 2012 order, available to it.
He said he was unable to understand that why the most coercive option (option-1) had been selected by the court and for what reason. He said no justification appeared to have been provided for selecting this option.
Gilani asked the court to adopt sixth option and leave the matter to the ultimate judges of his fate and reputation, who were the people of Pakistan.
“As I submit to this court, so I will also, in the manner expressed by the court in the sixth option, surrender to the judgment of the people of Pakistan at the appropriate time according to the constitution. People are and must remain the highest worldly sovereign in this country. They are the judges of the last resort in this world. That will be the best course of action and also be according to the sixth option formulated by the court itself,” Gilani said in his statement.
He asked the court to recall its March 8, 2012 order, which was ex- parte, adding that if nevertheless the court sought to enforce March 8, 2012 order, he reserved the right to expound his response thereto, as his response is to be submitted separately.
He said how can the state of Pakistan surrender its incumbent president for a trial before an investigating magistrate in another jurisdiction. He suggested that being a matter of grave public concern, the issue of writing the letter be sent to parliament to take a decision as was wisely done in the case of the 18th Amendment concerning Articles relating to the appointment in higher judiciary and parliamentary oversight.
He said the Mutual Assistance Request was already acted upon and finally concluded in 1998, and nothing remained to be done in that behalf. He said he had examined the recommendations sent to him by the Law Ministry over the issue of writing the letter and then while following the rules of business, gave his advice. He said it was categorically stated in the recommendations that all cases abroad had been conclusively closed by the ‘competent authority of the concerned country’ and time for filing appeal (by the Canton of Geneva) had also lapsed. He said the recommendations were based on legal opinions, including those of the former law secretary (a former retired judge of a superior court) and a former attorney general for Pakistan (a senior advocate) as well as other materials and documents from Switzerland. He said as far as other directions in the NRO were concerned, all had been complied with and implemented.
He said he acted on the advice expressed in the summary itself, thus he honestly and in all good faith accepted the proposal. A seven-member special bench will resume hearing in the contempt case on March 21.