<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" version="2.0"><channel>
                        <title>The Express Tribune</title>
                        <atom:link href="https://tribune.com.pk/feed/contemptlaw" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
                        <link>https://tribune.com.pk/feed/contemptlaw</link>
                        <description>The Express Tribune keeps you up to date with all the latest happenings from Pakistan and across the world!</description>
                        <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jun 26 00:43:57 +0500</lastBuildDate>
                        <language>en-US</language>
                        <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
                        <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
                        <generator>https://laravel.com/</generator><item>
			<title>Detailed verdict: Growing tendency to defy court orders, notes SC</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/437312/sc-strikes-down-contempt-of-court-act-2012-in-detailed-verdict</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/437312/sc-strikes-down-contempt-of-court-act-2012-in-detailed-verdict#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 12 18:37:21 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[azam.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=437312</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[SC says speaker national assembly has to stop talk against supreme court judges during assembly sessions.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Supreme Court released its detailed verdict released on Saturday for the Contempt of Court Act 2012 case, said that the growing tendency of not obeying the judgments of the courts by the state functionaries, including the high-ups of the executive will reduce the judgments of the courts of law to mere paper decrees and render the whole system of administration of justice ineffective consequently leading to anarchy.

Some 27 petitions had been filed under article 184(3) of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of the new Contempt of Court Act, 2012. Subsequently, the court subsequently struck the law down late last month.

Citing the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) case as an example in which its orders were being constantly defied by the former prime minister, culminating in his disqualification, said that the former premier was given a fair trial.

“Though the courts, exercising judicial restraint, have always used their power to punish for contempt sparingly, but at the same time they have a reciprocal expectation from the persons against whom the same were issued for implementation,execution of the judgments, orders and directions,” read the court judgment referring to the ongoing contempt proceedings against premier Pervaiz Ashraf.

Incumbent prime minister Ashraf is also facing contempt of court proceedings in the same case and is set to appear before the court a second time on September 18 to record his statement on whether he will write the letter to Swiss authorities for revival of graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari, or share his predecessor's fate.

The court highlighted that the Constitution itself under Article 190 maintains that all executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. The prime minister is, therefore, duty-bound to give effect to the decisions of this court, the judgment said.

‘No blanket immunity for anyone’

The court also made it clear in today’s judgment that no protection was available to any of the State functionaries from contempt proceedings.

“Clearly, considering the language employed in Article 204, no protection is available to any of the State functionaries mentioned in Article 248(1) from contempt proceedings… unless an amendment…of the Constitution.”

Justice Khilji Arif Hussain in his separate note said that the authors of the Constitution considered contempt of court so serious an offence that they have not left it to the legislature to change it by simple majority by defining what act constitutes contempt.

The federation’s counsel made a statement that new act was enacted, in view of contempt proceedings against the prime minister.

The court’s judgment also countered government’s intentions to snatch the CJ’s bench formulation administrative powers, saying that the provision of section 8(3) is directly relatable to the power of the chief justice in the matter of constitution of benches, which aspect has already formed the subject matter of discussion by this court in a large number of cases.

The judgment also discussed in depth the court’s contempt powers with Islamic, historic and Constitutional aspects.

In his additional note in the judgment, Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja noted that "in law-abiding nations of the world, the power to punish contemnors have not only existed, but it has also been used whenever required to enforce court orders."

Speaker to take action if judge’s conduct discussed in NA

The court, without mentioning contemptuous speeches delivered during legislation process in the parliament, held that “in view of Article 68 of the Constitution read with clause (c) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 248 of the National Assembly Rules, the Speaker is obliged not to allow a member to discuss the conduct of any judge of the Supreme Court or a high court in the discharge of his duties and if a member does it in violation of the above provisions, the Speaker is expected to take any of the actions envisaged under rules.”

The judgment further said that a perusal of said debates shows that the bill was tabled in the National Assembly on July 9 by suspending rules of procedure of the National Assembly and as per the record of the NA, the proceedings were completed the same day. After having complied with the codal formalities, it was then tabled before the Senate on July 11 and on completion of the proceedings, the President of Pakistan assented to it the same day and Act of Parliament was published in the Gazette of Pakistan on July 12 as Contempt of Court Act, 2012.

The court rejected objections raised by the attorney general over petitions filed by bar councils and said that it was the precedent of the bars to file petition on certain issues.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Regulating contempt</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/432511/regulating-contempt</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/432511/regulating-contempt#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 12 18:35:53 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[dr.tariq.hassan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=432511</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[By accepting contentions of petitioners, ignoring argument of government, SC has exposed itself to perception of bias.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[While striking down the recently-promulgated Contempt of Court Act of 2012, the Supreme Court of Pakistan declared that “the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 shall be deemed to have revived with effect from July 12, 2012, the day when the Act was enforced with all consequences”. In doing so, the Court has incongruously shown preference for a law passed by a dictatorial regime over a law passed by a democratically-elected parliament!

This is the second instance where the Constitution’s interpretation by the Honourable Supreme Court is likely to further tilt the delicate balance of power in favour of the judiciary. The judiciary seems to have effectively appropriated the power of the executive to appoint judges by using judicial influence to have the Nineteenth Constitutional Amendment passed. Parliament appears to have unwittingly succumbed to judicial will without any consideration of the consequences. This time the consequence of the Court’s order would be to take away the legislative power to regulate contempt of court.

Whatever the merits of the present case, the order appears to be unwarranted for two reasons. First, it has misconstrued the constitutional provision regarding contempt of court by negating the legislative right to regulate exercise of power by the Court. Second, it has acted excessively by striking down the whole law rather than preserving the procedural provisions thereof intended to provide an opportunity to the accused to have a fair trial, including the right to appeal.

The constitutional mandate for contempt of court is laid down in Article 204 of the Constitution. Article 204(1) and (2) empower the Supreme Court or a high court to punish any person who commits any act of contempt specified therein. However, Article 204(3) provides: “The exercise of the power conferred on a Court by this Article may be regulated by law and, subject to law, by rules made by the Court.” The exercise of this power can thus be regulated by law.

The Supreme Court observed in its Order: “As per preamble of the legislation under scrutiny, it has been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (3) of Article 204 of the Constitution, which provides that the exercise of the power conferred on a Court by this Article may be regulated by law and subject to law by rules made by the Court, but it does not mean that a statute can control or curtail the powers conferred on the superior Courts by the said Article, nor does it mean that in the absence of a statute on the above subject, the above Article would be inoperative.” While one can readily agree with the Court that a statute cannot curtail powers conferred on the Court, it is difficult to understand the logic behind the Court’s assertion that the statute cannot control the powers conferred on it.

The word “regulate” has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as follows: “To fix, establish, or control, to adjust by rule, method, or established mode; to direct by rule or restriction; to subject to governing principles or laws” (cited in PLD 2003 Lahore 73). The Oxford Dictionary similarly defines the word to mean control by means of rules and regulations. The Lahore High Court has also held the word “regulate” to be synonymous with word “control” or “govern” (1984 P Cr. L J 117 Lahore). The above-noted observation of the Court that a statute, mandated by the Constitution, cannot control the powers conferred on the Court appears, therefore, to be illogical.

The Court appears to have been wrongly swayed by the mistaken contentions made on behalf of the petitioners challenging the Act on the basis that it has: 1) usurped the powers of framing of the rules by the Courts; and 2) curtailed the power of the Courts instead of providing regulatory enactment to lay down the procedure for the trial of the contemners as provided in the Constitution and enlarging powers and scope of contempt of Court.

The Act had in no way usurped the rule-making power of the Court under Article 191 of the Constitution, which provides: “Subject to the Constitution and law, the Supreme Court may make rules regulating the practice and procedure of the Court.” This general rule-making power of the Supreme Court is clearly subject to the Constitution and law. Furthermore, a plain reading of Article 204(3) clearly suggests that rules made by the Court would be subject to any law of contempt promulgated thereunder. Both the general and specific rule-making powers of the Court are, therefore, clearly subservient to both the Constitution and the law.

There is nothing in Article 204 that suggests that the purpose of the regulatory enactment contemplated in Article 204(3) is in any way limited to laying down the procedure for the trial of the contemners or intended to enlarge powers and scope of contempt of Court. The Constitution requires procedures to be regulated in several specific instances (e.g., under Articles 67(2), 203 E(2) and 231). The scope of Article 204(3) could similarly have been but are not limited to regulating procedural matters.

The assertions made by the attorney general in this regard were totally ignored by the Court. The Supreme Court had plenty of reasons to invalidate the substantive provisions of the Act. However, by accepting all the contentions of the petitioners while ignoring the arguments made on behalf of the government, the Court has unnecessarily exposed itself to the perception of bias.

The Court’s adherence to a mere dictum in an age-old judgment of the Privy Council (AIR 1948 PC 194) and not applying the principle of severability established in its own judgments to knock down the innocuous procedural provisions of the Act also exposes it to criticism for being selective. The Court would have been better served by its reliance on a full bench judgment of the Indian Supreme Court, which has held: “It must be remembered that wider the amplitude of its power … the greater is the need of care for this Court to see that the power is used with restraint without pushing back the limits of the Constitution so as to function within the bounds of its own jurisdiction. To the extent, this Court makes the statutory authorities and other organs of the state perform their duties in accordance with law, its role is unexceptionable but it is not permissible or the Court to ‘take over’ the role of the statutory bodies or other organs of the state and ‘perform’ their functions” (1998 INDLAW SC 688).

Published in The Express Tribune, September 7th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Ominous warning: Gilani cautions judiciary against sacking PM Ashraf</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/421355/ominous-warning-gilani-cautions-judiciary-against-sacking-pm-ashraf</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/421355/ominous-warning-gilani-cautions-judiciary-against-sacking-pm-ashraf#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 12 22:54:34 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[abdul.manan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=421355</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Says country will risk division if new premier is disqualified.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Former premier Yousaf Raza Gilani has warned that the country would risk division if his successor was also sacked. 

Raja Pervaiz Ashraf – who took over after Gilani was disqualified by the apex court for contempt of court – faces a similar fate for his refusal to write to the Swiss authorities to reopen a dormant graft case against President Asif Ali Zardari.

Speaking at a news conference on Sunday, the former premier reiterated the ruling party’s policy vis-à-vis the Swiss letter. The PPP contends that writing the Swiss letter against the president is unconstitutional.

“If the incumbent premier is also sent packing by the court, we will not accept such an unconstitutional decision,” he added. “I warn the judiciary to rectify its fault and review its judgment on the NRO implementation.”

He warned the judiciary of street protests if Premier Ashraf was disqualified.

“We will resist the move, and will take the matter to the people of Pakistan,” he added.

Referring to his disqualification, the former premier said that he had sacrificed his job to protect the Constitution and save democracy. “This time around, if the judiciary sacks Pervaiz Ashraf, the country will risk dismemberment,” he said in an ominous warning.

Appearance of Ashraf

Asked if Premier Ashraf should appear before the apex court on August 27 to reply to a contempt of the court notice, Gilani said, “Although it’s useless, but it’s Asharf’s prerogative to appear or not.”

The former premier recalled that he had appeared before the court out of respect – but the judiciary did not reciprocate his move.

Fair elections jeopardised 

Gilani said the present judiciary has jeopardised the holding of free and fair elections. Next elections will be held as per schedule – but they are linked with the stability of the incumbent PPP government,” he added. “It’s a matter of three or four months, so the judiciary should have patience.”

Hitting out at opposition 

In a diatribe against the opposition, Gilani said the track record of Nawaz Sharif, the PML-N chief, shows that he always came to power with the support of the ‘third force’.

Though Gilani did not explain what he meant by ‘third force’ – he appeared to be referring to the military establishment.

The former premier claimed that Nawaz wanted postponement of the next general elections.

“Sharif’s recent statement that his party would resist postponement of the election was in fact a message for the PPP that the PML-N wanted the vote to be delayed,” added Gilani.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 13th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Review petition: Govt wants scrapping of contempt law overturned</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419516/review-petition-govt-wants-scrapping-of-contempt-law-overturned</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419516/review-petition-govt-wants-scrapping-of-contempt-law-overturned#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 12 21:33:34 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[qamar.zaman]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=419516</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Petition filed through federation's counsel, Abdul Shakoor Paracha.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The effort to defend the law wasn’t the most vigorous, nor was the apex court buying most of the supportive arguments. Yet, the government on Wednesday filed a review petition against the Supreme Court’s decision to scrap the hastily prepared and enacted Contempt of Court Act 2012. 

The law, which, the government admitted, was designed to save the new prime minister from contempt proceedings, was struck down on August 3 by a five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. The bench declared the newly- enacted law null and void, clearing the way for possible legal proceedings against the prime minister.

Following the apex court decision, President Asif Ali Zardari held consultations with coalition partners and legal wizards to discuss options available to the government. While several options, including the introduction of an ordinance were discussed, the government decided to avail the option of filing a review petition.

The review petition against the judgment, filed by the federation’s counsel, Abdul Shakoor Paracha, prayed to the court to review its order issued against the defunct law.  In its review petition, the government said that the Supreme Court was not an appropriate forum for hearing petitions against the contempt law.

“The order sought to be reviewed violates Article 25 of the Constitution in having entertained the petitions directly instead of rejecting these on the ground that the High Court should have been approached first,” the petition said.

The federation contended in its review that, since the over two dozen petitioners were not deprived of any fundamental rights, their petitions were not maintainable. The review petition added that, “the court fell into a manifest error of law in holding section 12 of [the law] to be contrary to Article 204(3) of the Constitution.”

The petition also highlights the following observations made by the court in its August 3 judgment as erroneous:

“[The law] has been promulgated under clause 3 of Article 204 of the Constitution, which confers power on the legislature to make law to regulate and exercise of power by the courts, and not to incorporate any substantive provision or defences as it has been done in proviso.”

“Impropriation of Article 248 (1) in proviso (i) to section 3 is tantamount to amending the Constitution, which cannot be done without following the procedure laid down in the Articles 238 and 239 of the Constitution”

“… transfer of proceedings from one judge/bench to another judge/bench is the prerogative of the Chief Justice being administrative head of his court, which cannot be controlled by the legislature, therefore, subsection (3) of section 8 [of the law] is violative of the principle of independence of judiciary.”

Published in The Express Tribune, August 9th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Déjà vu: Apex court summons Premier Ashraf</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419514/deja-vu-apex-court-summons-premier-ashraf</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419514/deja-vu-apex-court-summons-premier-ashraf#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 12 21:29:12 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[azam.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=419514</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Bench expresses frustration at lack of ‘meaningful process’.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Having seemingly lost patience with the attorney-general’s dilly-dallying, the apex court on Wednesday summoned Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf to appear before it on August 27.

Served with a show-cause notice, the premier will now have to explain in person to a five-member bench why he has not followed the orders of the court in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) judgment implementation case – specifically the instructions to write a letter to Swiss authorities regarding graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.

The notice was served under section 17 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 – the same law that was temporarily overturned by a contentious new act until it was struck down by the apex court – read with Article 204 of the Constitution.

The bench observed that the court had been pushed to summon the premier – pointing to what they termed the calculated defiance on the part of the prime minister via delaying tactics. Notably, the court also had some ominous words for the government: while such delay tactics may know no bounds, the restraint exercised by the court is also limited.

The court observed that, despite clear orders passed on July 25 – which stated that, in case of the premier’s failure to implement court orders, appropriate action could be taken against him – there was no “meaningful progress” on the matter. In an ominous comparison, the court also recalled that former premier Yousaf Raza Gilani had also deliberately violated the court’s direct orders on writing the letter to Swiss authorities – and now Prime Minister Ashraf, it said, was doing the same. Gilani had also been summoned before being charged with contempt.

Attorney-General Irfan Qadir sought more time from the court and requested that the hearing be adjourned till the first week of September, given that the case is of “sensitive nature”. However, the court denied his request and said that he had already been given enough time in the case. The court recalled that the attorney-general had been unable to bring the government’s reply on the letter since as far back as July 12.

Qadir argued that he has been trying to ‘fill the gap’ between institutions, he would  be unable to do this unless more time was given. At this, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that if this was indeed the attorney-general’s intention, enough time had been provided to execute it. “Before adjourning the hearing, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa said that he has hopes that we will find a way, according to law and the Constitution. We will make efforts to prevent a situation where institutions are in clash with each other,” he said.

Having offered breathing room to the government, and spoken about finding middle ground on the matter at the last hearing, the court on Wednesday observed that the ruling party’s rhetoric didn’t suggest that they wanted a resolution of the issue. The court was particularly perturbed by a TV interview of Law Minister Farooq H Naek the previous evening in which he said that government has already written letter for which the court had asked it and that a review petition would be filed against NRO judgment. The bench also noted that the attorney-general’s language at the previous hearing was also similar in nature given that he questioning the implement-ability of the orders.

The court clarified that the issue being heard in this case was not whether the orders or the NRO judgment was implementable or not – but whether they are being followed: “We had on the last date of hearing, and we have today, remained unable to subscribe to the said submission of the Attorney-General on account of the fact that the said judgments passed by a larger bench of this court and by the full court respectively have already attained finality and also because the present bench is only seized of implementation proceedings vis-à-vis those judgments. It goes without saying that an implementation bench cannot go behind a concluded and final judgment or revisit the same.”

The Supreme Court once again stressed that Prime Minister Ashraf should comply with its orders and write a letter to Swiss authorities.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 9th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Time-buying: Govt seeks review of  old orders to new PM</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419517/time-buying-govt-seeks-review-of-old-orders-to-new-pm</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419517/time-buying-govt-seeks-review-of-old-orders-to-new-pm#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 12 21:23:20 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[our.correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=419517</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Says apex court orders cannot be implemented.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[In a huddle at the Presidency on Tuesday night, the government had resolved to buy more time for Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf – and followed through in that effort on Wednesday.

In an effort that can be described, at best, as a push to buy time, Attorney-General Irfan Qadir filed a review petition against the Supreme Court order passed back on July 12 in which Prime Minister Ashraf was directed to write a letter to Swiss authorities regarding the reopening of cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.

The order in question was passed by a five-judge bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) case. Through its review petition, the federal government has asked the court to set aside the order, which, it maintains, is not implementable.

The move may not hold for very long, given that the court has reiterated on a number of occasions, including once again on Wednesday during the proceedings of the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) judgment implementation case that the matter was now of the implementation of the 2009 NRO verdict, not the verdict itself, given that the NRO judgment had attained finality.

According to the review petition, the prime minister was not bound to write the letter and it was actually the job of the federal government, that  is the federal cabinet, or the “concerned authority,” that is NAB. It added the premier had not received any directions in this regard.

The petition further said that the Supreme Court’s June 27 and July 12 orders in this case were unlawful, and, if the letter had been written, it would have violated Article 248(2) of Constitution. “The Prime Minister of Pakistan, by virtue of his oath, is bound to preserve and protect the Constitution and he is under a constitutional obligation to disregard any order of the Court which negates the Constitution or law,” the government argued in the petition.

The issue of the size of the bench was also raised. The petition maintained that the main judgment in the NRO case was recorded by a 17-member bench and it could not be implemented by a seven-member bench.

Interestingly, it also argued that former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani was convicted for contempt – which was one of the six options put forward by the court in terms of possible action against the then premier – which means the new prime minister cannot be tried in the same way. “…option no 2 has exhausted and could not apply as it had already been exercised.”

Another unusual argument made in the review petition questioned that, if the court itself could not write the letter to Swiss authorities, why was it expecting the prime minister to do so.

The Supreme Court, while hearing the NRO implementation case, on July 12 had ordered Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf to submit a compliance report by July 25. Later, on July 25, when the compliance report was not submitted, the Supreme Court set a deadline of August 8 for Prime Minister Ashraf to implement its order of writing the letter to Swiss authorities.

At hearing on Wednesday, the apex court finally summoned the Premier Ashraf to appear before it on August 27 – where it could slap contempt charges on him.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 9th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt law: Government files review petition against SC's decision</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419160/contempt-law-government-files-review-petition-against-scs-decision</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419160/contempt-law-government-files-review-petition-against-scs-decision#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 12 06:21:25 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[web.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=419160</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Petition filed through federation's counsel, Abdul Shakoor Paracha.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The government on Wednesday filed a review petition against the Supreme Court’s decision that outlawed the Contempt of Court Act 2012 (COCA), Express News reported.

The petition was filed through federation's counsel, Abdul Shakoor Paracha.

On August 3, a five-member bench, led by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, declared COCA null and void– a clear declaration that the court has the right to hold anyone in contempt, regardless of their office.

In response to the decision, President Asif Ali Zardari had met with his legal experts to discuss options to save his second prime minster from being dismissed, as there is no legal immunity for him in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case.

Zardari had also met with Law Minister Farooq H Naek and had held a detailed discussion with him.

The government has already seen one of its premiers sent packing on contempt charges after he refused to follow court orders regarding writing a letter to Swiss authorities – and a similar fate hangs over Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, who has also thus far demurred from writing the letter to the Swiss authorities.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt of court: SC issues show-cause notice to PM Ashraf</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419149/nro-implementation-case-sc-issues-contempt-of-court-notice-to-pm-ashraf</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419149/nro-implementation-case-sc-issues-contempt-of-court-notice-to-pm-ashraf#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 12 05:18:15 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[web.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=419149</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[SC tells Ashraf to appear personally before the court on August 27.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[While getting its short order penned down in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case on Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Pakistan issued a show-cause notice to Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf on the charges of contempt of court, ordering him to appear personally before the court on August 27, Express News reported.

The show-cause notice has been issued to Prime Minister Ashraf under Article 204 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court observed that Prime Minister Ashraf should comply with court’s orders and write a letter to the Swiss authorities.

The court had already issued an order when a contempt of court case was underway against former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, in which it was told to disregard the summary made by the Law Ministry and write a letter to the Swiss authorities to open graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.

The court stated that Gilani deliberately violated the court’s orders and did not write a letter, which is why he was disqualified after conducting a trial and that Ashraf was also doing the same.

Attorney General Irfan Qadir sought more time from the court and requested that the hearing be adjourned till the first week of September, given that the case is of “sensitive nature”. However, the court denied his request and said that he had already been given enough time in the case.

The court further stated that the attorney general did not bring directives of the government on July 12, explaining if the prime minister will be writing a Swiss letter or not.

Qadir maintained that he has been trying to fill the gap between institutions and that if given more time he will be able to do that.

Justice Aijaz Afzal observed that if it was intended, the time given to Qadir was enough to resolve the matter.

‘Did not expect that PM Ashraf will be summoned like this’

Speaking to the media on the premises of the Supreme Court, the attorney general said that he was not expecting that the prime minister “will be summoned like this.”

Qadir said that he has hopes that the Supreme Court will exercise restraint and added, “Institutes should exercise restraint.”

When asked if Premier Ashraf will claim immunity, he said, “No one needs to claim immunity, it is given by the Constitution itself.”

The attorney general said that he still hoped that there could be a way out where there will not be an institutional clash.

“Before adjourning the hearing Justice Asif Saeed Khosa said that he has hopes that we will find a way, according to law and the Constitution. We will make efforts to prevent a situation where institutions are in clash with each other,” he said.

Read the Supreme Court's order here.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>NRO implementation: Crucial day in SC for immunity-less premier</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419042/nro-implementation-crucial-day-in-sc-for-immunity-less-premier</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419042/nro-implementation-crucial-day-in-sc-for-immunity-less-premier#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 12 22:33:43 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[irfan.ghauri]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=419042</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Party leadership huddles at Presidency to discuss ways to buy more time.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Running short of time and options, the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) said it is adamant to “resist” what it terms “new centres of legislative power” – a thinly veiled reference to the striking down of a contentious law last week by the Supreme Court.


The law would have provided legal cover to the premier from contempt proceedings, which he is faced with when the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case resumes today (Wednesday). On the eve of the crucial hearing, the top leadership of the PPP huddled at the Presidency.

A statement that came from the meeting late Tuesday night highlighted the defiant mood in the ruling party camp, despite the striking down of the premier’s immunity by the apex court. “[The meeting] expressed determination to resist … the emergence of new centres of legislative power other than the elected Parliament,” the spokesperson to the president said. “Law-making is the sacred responsibility of legislature which will not be abandoned at any cost,” the statement added.

With Yousaf Raza Gilani already shown the door, and incumbent Raja Pervaiz Ashraf in hot water for not writing the letter to Swiss authorities, the government’s legal team will attempt to buy some more time today from a five-member bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa.

Sources said it is likely that Attorney General Irfan Qadir would attempt to gain time by claiming that the government was considering the options given by the court at the last hearing, two weeks ago. In what may be construed as a hint of leniency, the court, at the last hearing, had asked the government to come up with an amicable solution, and offered its assistance. However, that gesture came at a time a new law was in place that protected the premier from contempt proceedings. Last week, the apex court nullified the law.

The government had announced on Sunday that it would file an appeal against the scrapping of the contempt of court law, but it is yet to furnish its plea before the court.

Sources said the appeal would be filed later this week, with the main contention that court order has revived the law passed by a dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, and nullified the will of the people as the new law was passed by ‘genuinely’ elected representatives.

PPP insiders say the party is firm in its stance that it will not write the letter against its president.

The party’s legal wizard, Law Minister Senator Farooq H Naek, who was also the architect of the scrapped contempt law, briefed the huddle on legal issues pertaining to Wednesday’s court proceedings. Sources said the PPP is also considering challenging the Supreme Court order, claiming that it is not implementable.

The government’s team has already raised an objection over the head of the five-judge bench, Justice Khosa, and is expected to press on it during today’s proceedings. Attorney General Qadir had objected that Justice Khosa had discussed the case with him, prior to his appointment as attorney general, and shared his views with him over the matter.

‘Elections discussed’

The president called upon the party leadership to gear up preparations for future elections, which, the president emphasised, would be held on time in consultation with coalition partners.

The president advised the party leadership to ensure that every lawmaker and party ticket-holder thoroughly checked the voter lists and report any discrepancy to the Election Commission, the statement said.

Minister for Water and Power Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar also briefed the meeting on the energy situation in the country and informed the participants about the progress on implementing zero duty on the import of solar panels.

(Read: SC’s verdict on contempt law)

Published in The Express Tribune, August 8th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>'Supreme Court gets too 'free', steps out of constitutional domain': Aitzaz</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419030/supreme-court-getting-too-free-stepping-out-of-constitutional-domain-aitzaz</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/419030/supreme-court-getting-too-free-stepping-out-of-constitutional-domain-aitzaz#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 12 19:25:12 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[web.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=419030</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Aitzaz Ahsan tells BBC that an amendment in Constitution by two-thirds majority cannot be challenged in court.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Senior Pakistan Peoples Party leader Senator Aitzaz Ahsan has said that, in some matters, the judiciary is stepping out of the domain of the constitution and is getting 'too independent.'

In an interview with the BBC Urdu on Tuesday, he said that the Supreme Court’s activism is one sided and not equal for all aspects.

“Judiciary is independent, it is too much independent, actually it is getting ‘free’ of the constitution in some matters,” stated Aitizaz.

Pointing towards the supremacy of the Parliament, he said that the parliament can make amendments in the Constitution with a two-third majority, and this cannot be challenged in court.

Commenting on the role of Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Ahsan said that the fromer’s gallant role against former president General (r) Pervez Musharraf had served to strengthen the democratic setup in the country, but subsequent actions had prompted people to question the judiciary.

Some judgements passed by the Supreme Court recently eliminated any possibility of the country returning to martial law and, therefore, there is no chance of the military taking over in the future, Ahsan noted.

On former Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s disqualification by the SC, the Barrister said that he believed dismissing Gilani was a wrong decision, adding that the case was not a matter of disqualification, rather it was an issue related to the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

He questioned that how could the court ask to open a case against the President in a foreign court while the Constitution clearly granted him immunity?

Ahsan said that the stance taken by the Chief Justice in a speech that the judiciary can stop the Parliament from a Constitutional amendment clashes with the Supreme Court’s own decisions. He added that the apex court can review the amendments made through simple majority for any discrepancy within existing articles of the constitution, however, an amendments passed with a two-third majority cannot be challenged in the court.

Talking about the controversial Arsalan Iftikhar case, he said that the proceedings against the CJ’s son had raised questions about the court's impartiality. He said that the present the judiciary is diverting from the prevailing principles of investigation into Arsalan’s alleged dealings with Malik Riaz Hussain.

On his movement for the restoration of judges, Ahsan said he had no regrets and that it was a movement for the victory of the people.

PPP to win next elections

Speaking on the upcoming general elections, the Barrister said that the PPP would not only win but also be able to form a government since President Asif Ali Zardari has now the experience of forming a hung parliament.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>NRO implementation case: PM dodges court strategy question</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/418598/nro-implementation-case-pm-dodges-court-strategy-question</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/418598/nro-implementation-case-pm-dodges-court-strategy-question#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 12 22:28:17 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[our.correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=418598</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Ashraf calls for peaceful coexistence of institutions, says parliament must be strengthened.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The government seems to be adopting a ‘good cop-bad cop’ strategy as far as its tensions with the judiciary are concerned.


Contrary to a strongly worded statement recently issued by the Presidency after the apex court scrapped a contempt of court law which would have shielded senior government officials from contempt proceedings, Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf maintained a conciliatory tone on Monday.

Speaking during an informal interaction with the media after hosting an Iftar dinner at the PM House, the premier remained focused on matters pertaining to the upcoming elections – and refused to be drawn into a discussion on what he expected would happen on August 8 (tomorrow), when he is to respond to the Supreme Court’s orders about writing a letter to Swiss authorities.

Instead, Prime Minister Ashraf delivered a lecture on peaceful coexistence among state institutions and said that all institutions, including the executive and judiciary, should work for the country.

Maintaining a carefully diplomatic stance, the premier remarked, “It is the right of people to elect their government. They have the right to have a government of their choice,” when asked about the possible outcome of a judiciary-executive tussle that has already cost one Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) prime minister his job.

Elections

Without giving any hint as to when elections would actually be scheduled for, Premier Ashraf said free and fair elections are the only way forward for the country, only insisting that the polls would be held soon.

“We have no other option but to hold free and fair elections,” he said in a speech before his interaction with the media.

Ashraf noted that holding free and fair elections would strengthen parliament and hoped that the present government would achieve this target as it had done ‘other milestones in the past’.

He added that the present government was ‘least bothered’ with whoever was elected in the next elections, saying that this was the only way to strengthen parliament as an institution.

The prime minister wasn’t all reconciliation, however. Premier Ashraf tactfully said that since the independent media and judiciary both enjoy powers, parliament should also be a powerful institution – apparently hinting that the tensions had not been swept under the rug as far as he was concerned.

He further said that the appointment of a chief election commissioner (CEC) was testament to the fact that the government was heading in the right direction, as it sent ‘a positive message’.  An independent CEC as well as a vibrant media and awareness in the people, he assured, also meant that rigging in the polls could be ruled out.

Referring to the media, the prime minister welcomed criticism, saying it was the right of the media – but added a caveat, saying that while the media may well point out the weaknesses of the government, it should not distort facts through sensationalism.

The prime  minister also appealed to the media to ‘keep alive a ray of hope’, saying hopelessness destroyed society.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 7th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt of court act: Cautious govt seeks review of apex court ruling</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/418140/contempt-of-court-act-cautious-govt-seeks-review-of-apex-court-ruling</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/418140/contempt-of-court-act-cautious-govt-seeks-review-of-apex-court-ruling#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 05 Aug 12 22:10:50 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[zia.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=418140</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Legal aide, however, does not rule out option of  re-enacting defunct act or passing an ordinance.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Dropping the option of either re-enacting the defunct Contempt of Court Act or promulgating it through a presidential ordinance, a seemingly subdued government on Sunday decided to seek a review of the Supreme Court ruling on the law.

Following intense deliberations, President Asif Ali Zardari approved a plan to file a review petition against the apex court’s August 3 short order which declared the Contempt of Court Act, 2012 null and void.

The government also decided to file a similar petition against another apex court decision of July 12 in which Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf was directed to write a letter to the Swiss authorities by August 8 for reopening a dormant graft case against the president.

The next hearing into the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case is due this week.

The president finalised the plan after consulting his political and legal aides over the weekend. The most significant of these interactions to brainstorm how the government should respond to the apex court was a meeting between President Zardari and Law Minister Farooq H Naek.

The weekend was a busy one for the president.

Hours after the court verdict on Friday night, Zardari had an intense round of consultations with leaders of political groups allied to his Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) government at the centre and in provinces. He also spent a hectic Saturday with key figures of what is known as a core legal team defending the government in several cases in the Supreme Court.

The outcome of these meetings was not shared with media officially, however, insiders said that the decision to file a review petitions in both the cases had been given approval by the president and his legal team was already preparing the draft.

“We are going to file a review petition against both the decisions. We think they are fundamentally flawed and contain many mistakes and there is room for correction,” a member of the government’s legal team told The Express Tribune.

Attorney General Irfan Qadir was even more aggressive in his remarks against the judiciary and its decisions.

“An opportunity can be given to the judiciary through the review petition to rectify the wrong it has done and restore its dignity and honour through its order,” he said while talking to a private television channel.

Asked why the options of re-enacting the same law with minor changes or promulgating it through a presidential order were not implemented, the member of the legal team said: “They are still on the table… But the thing is that we want to go step by step. We want to exploit everything available to us.”

But some other officials of the ruling party said the reason behind shying away from radically defiant options was a hesitant response from allied parties to support the idea of confronting the judiciary openly.

“None of the political associates were forthcoming with their backing for options Zardari sahib put on the table during Friday night’s meeting. That is why he decided to go for a milder plan,” said a federal minister who was briefed about the huddle.

It was still not clear whether the government would wait for the detailed verdict in the contempt case before filing the review.

The legal team’s member, however, said both the applications would be submitted before August 8 when Premier Ashraf is slated to respond to the court’s order of writing the letter to the Swiss authorities.

(Read: SC’s verdict on contempt law)

Published in The Express Tribune, August 6th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Government to file review petition against SC contempt law decision</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/417881/government-to-file-review-petition-against-sc-contempt-law-decision</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/417881/government-to-file-review-petition-against-sc-contempt-law-decision#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 05 Aug 12 10:40:06 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[web.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=417881</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[President Zardari decides to ask for review;  no legal cover for PM once NRO implementation case is resumed.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The government has decided to file a review petition against the Supreme Court’s decision that struck down the contentious Contempt of Court Act 2012 (COCA), Express News reported on Sunday.

On August 3, a five-member bench, led by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, declared COCA null and void– a clear declaration that the court has the right to hold anyone in contempt, regardless of their office.

In response to the decision, President Asif Ali Zardari met his legal experts last night to discuss various options to save his second prime minster from being dismissed, as there is no legal cover for him once the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case is resumed on August 8.

Zardari also met Law Minister Farooq H Naek and held a detailed discussion with him.

The government has already seen one of its premiers sent packing on contempt charges after he refused to follow court orders regarding writing a letter to Swiss authorities – and a similar fate hangs over Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, who has also thus far demurred from writing the letter to the Swiss authorities.

Read: No immunity for PM: Zardari to gather legal eagles to prepare for Aug 8]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>No immunity for PM: Zardari to gather legal eagles to prepare for Aug 8</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/417808/no-immunity-for-pm-zardari-to-gather-legal-eagles-to-prepare-for-aug-8</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/417808/no-immunity-for-pm-zardari-to-gather-legal-eagles-to-prepare-for-aug-8#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 05 Aug 12 05:40:20 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[irfan.ghauri]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=417808</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Options include re-introducing a modified, but similar contempt law through a presidential ordinance.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[With no legal cover for the prime minister when the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case resumes on August 8, the ruling party has a number of questions before it – which will be posed in a meeting of its legal eagles with President Asif Ali Zardari.


The meeting will determine what the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP)’s strategy will be in the wake of the Supreme Court striking down the contentious Contempt of Court Act 2012 – a law that had controversially provided immunity from contempt charges to top office holders, including, most importantly, the prime minister.

The government has already seen one of its premiers sent packing on contempt charges after he refused to follow court orders regarding writing a letter to Swiss authorities – and a similar fate hangs over the head of the new prime minister, Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, who has also thus far demurred from writing the letter, which will go against the incumbent president, who is also the chief of the ruling PPP.

“The president will be meeting his legal aides. Only after this meeting will I be in a position to disclose what our strategy will be,” Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira told The Express Tribune. Presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar said the meeting could take place “any day soon.”

Sources said that the meeting will take place today (Sunday).

Several options were already discussed on Friday night – most controversial of which was the option of re-introducing another contempt law that is similar in nature to the one struck down by the SC.

However, given the time frame and reported reluctance on the part of PPP’s allies,  the ruling party is left with only one option should they opt for this route: a presidential ordinance.

Sources said that the law ministry has already sent a draft of the proposed ordinance to the Presidency where Sunday’s meeting of PPP’s legal brains will discuss it.

The government, though, is not ready to disclose its cards just yet, saying that a final decision will be taken after President Zardari holds the meeting with his legal aides.

On the other hand, PPP’s allies did not appear to be committing any unconditional support just yet. “If the new bill is in accordance with the consultation of the allies, we will support it. But if it violates the Constitution, then we will express our reservations,” Wasay Jalil of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) told The Express Tribune. He clarified that his party accepted the apex court’s decision. Jalil stated that, “We [MQM] will try to convince our coalition partners to remove defects [from the proposed bill].”

The stance of another ally, Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q), was not much different from that of the MQM. “We will decide after looking at the [draft of the new bill],” said Senator Kamil Ali Agha of the PML-Q. Responding to a question if the party had given its word of support to the PPP during Friday’s meeting, Agha added that “nothing was finalised during that meeting …the government discussed four or five options it had to deal with the situation and we will decide our strategy after knowing which option [they] are going to choose.”

However, Senator Haji Muhammad Adeel from the Awami National Party (ANP), another one of PPP’s allies, said his party would support parliament. “We will support the new bill if it agrees with our policy, irrespective of the fact that if Supreme Court strikes it down once again,” Haji Adeel told The Express Tribune. While explaining his point of view, the senator was adamant it was parliament’s duty to legislate and the court’s to interpret. But, he added, the court had taken up the responsibility of striking legislation down.

Responding to a question regarding the best option available to the government, Adeel said that the “issuance of an ordinance would be the best … it would remain in the field for 120 days, otherwise it would lapse if it is not endorsed by parliament.” A legal expert opined that, in case the government issued an ordinance, it would be challenged in the court immediately. “It is likely that a decision will also come in a day or two because the court would say that it has already decided the legal points related to the issue,” Salman Akram Raja stated.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 5th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt law: Sharjeel questions SC’s judgment</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/417733/contempt-law-sharjeel-questions-sc%e2%80%99s-judgment</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/417733/contempt-law-sharjeel-questions-sc%e2%80%99s-judgment#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 04 Aug 12 20:22:55 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[our.correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Sindh]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=417733</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Minister claims decision aimed at creating anarchy.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Parliament is the supreme authority to make laws and cannot be stopped from doing its prime job of legislation, said Sindh Information Minister Sharjeel Inam Memon on Saturday.


Speaking at a press conference along with office bearers of the Peoples Lawyers Forum at the Sindh Secretariat, he questioned the recent verdict of the Supreme Court against the new contempt law.

Memon claimed that the decision was aimed at creating anarchy in the country, but the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) would not let it happen. He blamed the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz chief and some “likeminded people” for being behind the conspiracy to derail the elected government.

Criticising the Supreme Court, Memon said that more than 8,000 cases under the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) have been disposed of, but one case relating to President Asif Ali Zardari is being taken up by the apex court.

“I want to ask the Supreme Court why it is not taking up the cases of those people who were charged with murder and kidnapping for ransom cases and are now beneficiaries of the NRO,” he asked. Memon said that had Benazir Bhutto not struck a deal with Pervez Musharraf under the NRO, democracy would not have been restored to the country. The PPP respected the judiciary and had accepted all its decisions in “protest” but now the party would not bow down because parliament was the supreme forum, and has also given immunity to the president from any trial against him, he said.

Memon presented a video clipping of Awami Muslim League chief Sheikh Rashid, in which the former minister was shown saying, “Chaudhry Iftikhar would wait for hours to meet me at Lal Haveli in Rawalpindi. Later, I handed his case over to the Chaudhrys of Gujrat who referred him ahead”.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 5th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Protecting the charter: Celebrations in Multan</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/417417/protecting-the-charter-celebrations-in-multan</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/417417/protecting-the-charter-celebrations-in-multan#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 04 Aug 12 05:09:11 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[owais.jafri]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=417417</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[They pulled off black armbands that they had been wearing in protest at the controversial law passed by parliament.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Lawyers from the Lahore High Court Bar Association (MHCBA) were ecstatic after the Supreme Court struck down the Contempt of Court Act.


They pulled off the black armbands that they had been wearing in protest at the controversial law passed by parliament. They also pulled down the black flag hoisted atop the Bar building.

Talking to The Express Tribune MHCBA President Mehmood Ashraf Khan said the Supreme Court has proven itself as the custodian of the Constitution.  He added that the apex court has assured the people that it would neither allow the Constitution to be disfigured by parliament nor corruption to thrive in the country.

Meanwhile, Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) also organised celebrations in different parts of the city supporting the court’s decision. PTI leader Tariq Naeemullah raised slogans in favour of the judiciary.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 4th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Presidency meeting: Will a resolute govt re-introduce contempt law?</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/417331/presidency-meeting-will-a-resolute-govt-re-introduce-contempt-law</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/417331/presidency-meeting-will-a-resolute-govt-re-introduce-contempt-law#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 12 23:54:43 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[irfan.ghauri]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=417331</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Coalition partners urge filing an appeal against SC decision to strike down Contempt of Court bill.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The ruling party will not back down – and intends to counter the striking down of the contempt act 2012. 

If reports are to be believed, a meeting held at the Presidency to discuss the situation following the apex court’s verdict late Friday night has talked of reintroducing the contempt law with a few modifications in the next couple of days.

According to sources, the ambitious proposal foresaw the bulldozing of the law through parliament before August 8 – when Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf could be charged with contempt by the Supreme Court in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) case for not complying with court orders regarding writing a letter to the Swiss authorities.  Another participant confirmed that this option was being discussed. It was also added that the option of promulgating an Ordinance could also be taken given the short period of time available.

While these reports were source-based, the meeting did issue a strong-worded statement declaring that the ruling alliance would resist any move to undermine the supremacy of parliament. “The meeting expressed its resolve that the right of parliament to legislate will be upheld and this right will not allowed to be compromised no matter what the odds and the cost,” said presidential spokesman Senator Farhatullah Babar.

The spokesman did not mention decision of the court directly, the reference was clear. “The power to legislate under the Constitution belongs to elected representatives alone, the meeting reiterated unequivocally,” said the presidential spokesman.

Little could be known about what other contingency plans the allies have chalked out. The meeting was still under way at the time of filing of report.

Before this statement, senior leaders of the ruling alliance were reluctant to give their reaction. On his way to the meeting at the Presidency, Haji Adeel of ANP did tell The Express Tribune: “we are happy that the judges are united and they give unanimous decisions, especially when it comes to cases against our ruling coalition.”

Chaired jointly by President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, the meeting was attended by Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, Senator Haji Muhammad Adeel, Senator Afrasiab Khattak, Dr Farooq Sattar, Senator Babar Khan Ghouri, Senator Abbas Khan Afridi, Munir Khan Orakzai and Hameedullah Jan Afridi.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 4th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt law: Outlawed</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/417337/contempt-law-outlawed</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/417337/contempt-law-outlawed#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 12 23:49:26 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[azam.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=417337</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[No immunity for Prime Minister Ashraf on August 8.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Observations by the bench throughout two weeks of proceedings, a generally listless defence by the government, and, above all, a fragile law to begin with, rendered the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the new contempt of court act almost unsurprising. 

A five-member bench, led by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, read out its verdict striking down the contentious Contempt of Court Act 2012 on Friday – a clear declaration that the court has the right to hold anyone in contempt, regardless of their office.

While the Act was ultimately struck down in its entirety, the court did not find issue with all its clauses, but observed that keeping the remaining clauses wouldn’t serve much purpose. “After having found various provisions of Contempt of Court Act 2012 as ultra vires the Constitution, we are of the opinion that the remaining provisions of the impugned legislation, if allowed to stay on the statute book, would serve no purpose….,” read the court order.

The court, in its 21-page short order, also observed that the government’s defence had, itself, admitted that the law was made to protect the new prime minister following his predecessor’s disqualification for contempt.

Former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani had been found guilty of contempt in June for not following court orders to write a letter to the Swiss authorities regarding graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari, and was subsequently disqualified, and his cabinet dissolved. His successor, Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, was given the same instructions shortly after taking oath as the new premier – and has thus far shown the same unwillingness to obey the court’s orders on the Swiss letter matter. This matter, being taken up in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case, has been adjourned till August 8.

The last hearing of the NRO implementation case took place when the contempt law 2012, which offered immunity to the prime minister from contempt proceedings, was still in place. The new contempt law prescribed, among other things, immunity for the president, prime minister, governors, chief ministers as well as federal and provincial ministers from contempt charges. It had also prolonged the appeal procedure, and even allowed for criticism of judges. The new law had been challenged almost immediately by over two dozen petitioners, before it was shot down on Friday.

Now, on August 8, the matter of the premier’s refusal to write the Swiss letter will be heard under the old contempt law, under which Gilani was shown the door.

The court’s short order also pointed out that the law had been passed in haste – for the obvious reasons of protecting the new prime minister, as was admitted by the government’s counsel Abdul Shakoor Paracha and Attorney-General Irfan Qadir. The court order pointed out the language of the act as an indicator of the haste in which it was framed and ultimately passed.

The court also held that, through the enactment of the new act, “…attempt has been made to reduce the powers of the court as has been indicated in different provisions…,” adding that section 12 of the new act is contrary to Article 204(3) of the Constitution that gives power to the court to frame rules for its contempt proceedings.

It added that the proviso (i) to section 3, which grants exemption to the public office holders mentioned in Article 248(1) from contempt of court, is violative of Article 25 as under Article 204(2), the Court is empowered to punish any person for contempt without any exception.

As for the appeal time, it was observed that limitation of 30 days for filing an appeal to a bench of the high court, 60 days for filing appeal to the Supreme Court, and filing of intra-court appeal or application for re-appraisal within 30 days from the date of show cause notice or the order, are aimed at delaying decisions in contempt cases and compromise expeditious disposal of such cases to restore the dignity of the courts.

(Read: SC’s verdict on contempt law)

Published in The Express Tribune, August 4th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>SC’s verdict on contempt law</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/417093/sc%e2%80%99s-verdict-on-contempt-law</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/417093/sc%e2%80%99s-verdict-on-contempt-law#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 12 15:15:08 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[editorial]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Editorial]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=417093</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The judiciary should be held accountable, much like any other pillar of the state.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[We see spread out before us a labyrinth that is, as things look now, virtually impossible to negotiate. Parliament and the Supreme Court have clashed directly with the latter on Friday striking down the new Contempt of Court law passed by parliament (in one hour and eight minutes) less than a month ago. The new law, as some members representing the government have conceded, was intended to protect the prime minister from meeting the same unfortunate fate as his predecessor and stated that a person holding public office could not be held in contempt. For that very reason, and because it was a political ploy by the PPP, the apex court’s verdict of August 3 was quite expected.

The question asked by the Supreme Court as to how one treatment could be meted out to one prime minister and a different kind to another is a valid one. But the whole issue raises the point of how the Constitution is to be treated and where final authority in this matter lies. The law in question was blatantly intended to suit the PPP-led government’s own interests. When going through with the new law, the ruling party knew the path would be opened up for greater confrontation with the judiciary and this is precisely what has happened. No well-wisher of Pakistan would have wanted this situation to emerge but it has. It is uncertain how we are to weave our way out of this maze with its many obstacles and dead ends.

One also needs to consider that even with the old contempt law in place, there is a question on some people’s minds and it is not entirely an irrelevant one. It has to do with holding the judiciary accountable, much like any other pillar of the state. The perception that politicians are singled out for criticism in a country like Pakistan, with generals and judges considered holy cows, keeps on getting reinforced. As for the generals, they should be considered equal under the law and by the courts. And as far as the judges are concerned, there is the Supreme Judicial Council but it is headed by the chief justice of Pakistan so it can be argued that this accountability mechanism, insofar as the country’s judiciary is concerned, is not entirely transparent.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 4th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>SC declares contempt law null and void</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/417058/clause-leaves-no-difference-between-revenue-officers-sc-judges-cj</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/417058/clause-leaves-no-difference-between-revenue-officers-sc-judges-cj#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 12 11:00:55 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[web.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=417058</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[SC terms amendment as unconstitutional, says the 2003 contempt ordinance will come into effect.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Supreme of Court of Pakistan declared the contempt law, recently passed by the parliament, as “null and void”, while hearing petitions against the law on Friday. 

Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, heading a five-member bench, remarked that the immunity provided by the new law is against the Constitution.

The chief justice added that the Section 6 and Section 8 of the new law are also unconstitutional and are against the freedom of judiciary.

The Section 11, which says that a hearing will be suspended when an appeal is filed, is also against the freedom of the judiciary, the chief justice remarked, and added that the new law is contradictory to the Article 4 and 9 of the Constitution.

No government official can be given any immunity, the bench maintained, adding that the 2003 contempt of court ordinance will now come into effect.

Earlier during the hearing, Attorney General Irfan Qadir completed his arguments and petitioners were ordered by the chief justice to give rejoinders as written statements due to lack of time.

While presenting his arguments, Qadir said that the words of the constitution should be “given new meaning” in accordance with the law.

This statement was greeted with surprise by the court.

“You are the attorney general of Pakistan, how can you make such a statement?” enquired Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, while Justice Jilani said, “You should know the consequences of giving such a statement.”

Justice Khawaja remarked that such a thing was not possible.

Earlier, the chief justice objected to Article 2 (a) of the contempt law, saying that the use of the term “judge” there left no difference between the Supreme Court judges and revenue officers.

“All judicial officers have been treated as one,” said the chief justice, in objection to Article 2 (a) of the Contempt of Court Act 2012 which states:

  (a)    “Judge” includes all officers acting in a judicial capacity in the administration of justice;

During yesterday’s proceedings, Qadir had objected to the bench, terming them biased, but when the chief justice had challenged him to name the judges, he backed down.

Read the Supreme Court's short order here.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt law case: AG accuses SC bench of being biased</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/416899/contempt-law-case-ag-accuses-sc-bench-of-being-biased</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/416899/contempt-law-case-ag-accuses-sc-bench-of-being-biased#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 12 04:48:19 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[azam.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=416899</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Tells court to ignore Aitzaz Ahsan, Raza Rabbani’s opposition to law.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[As the contempt of court law case nears its conclusion, the firebrand attorney general of Pakistan raised temperatures in courtroom number 1 on Thursday by objecting to the Supreme Court’s bench, terming them biased.


The five-member bench, led by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, which is likely to announce its short order on the case today (Friday), challenged Attorney-General Irfan Qadir to name the judges, after which he backed down.

During the case proceedings, which have already seen over two dozen petitioners challenge the new contempt of court law, Qadir also asked the court to ignore the views of some leading Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) legal brains that had opposed the law when it was being passed by parliament last month.

On Wednesday, the chief justice had pointed out that Senators Aitzaz Ahsan and Raza Rabbani were not in favour of the new law. Qadir, however, claimed that the two neither represented the majority of parliament nor the party policy.

The court asked the attorney-general to name the judges he opposed and file in writing his reasons for calling them biased, but the chief justice didn’t stop short of accusing him of making baseless accusations against the judges. “This is not the first time you have raised objections over the constitution of a bench (in the middle of the proceedings),” said the chief justice, adding that if he had raised the issue earlier, the court would not have wasted 10 days of hearings.

Qadir, himself a former judge, replied: “To avoid any kind of misunderstanding, I don’t press the question of bias.”

Citing the conviction of former premier Yousaf Raza Gilani for not following court orders, Qadir asserted that, the court was essentially asking the former premier to violate Article 248, which he could not do as a sworn member of parliament. He also claimed that after Gilani’s ‘unconstitutional’ conviction, there was a need to enact a new law.

The chief justice, however, questioned whose side Qadir was raising the question of being “biased” from, since he was not representing the government in this case, while the federation’s lawyer had not said a single word in this regard.

Justice Khilji Arif observed that since no appeal was filed by the government against Gilani’s conviction in the due timeframe, the matter could not be discussed any more.

The bench also observed that due deliberations were not held before introducing the new law. Qadir said that the same thing could be done now if the court engaged amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the case.

However, realising the attorney general wanted to prolong the proceedings, the bench ignored his suggestion once again.

Qadir is likely to conclude his arguments today.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 3rd, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt law case: AG objects to bench, accuses judges of being biased</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/416426/contempt-law-case-ag-objects-to-bench-accuses-judges-of-being-biased</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/416426/contempt-law-case-ag-objects-to-bench-accuses-judges-of-being-biased#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 12 11:17:18 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[web.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=416426</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Court tells Attorney General to name judges, present, in written, his reasons for calling them biased.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Attorney General Irfan Qadir, during the hearing of petitions against the contempt law, objected to four judges of the bench, stating that they gave the impression of being biased, Express News reported on Thursday.

A five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, was hearing the case.

Qadir appeared before the court and stated that the way hearing was being conducted gave the impression that the court was being “biased”, to which the chief justice enquired from whose side he was raising the question of “bias” since he was not representing the government in this case.

The court told the AG to name the judges and present, in written, his reasons for calling them biased.

“This is not the first time you have raised objections over the constitution of a bench,”  said the chief justice, adding that if he had raised the issue earlier, the court would not have wasted 10 days of hearings.

The chief justice told Qadir that he was making baseless accusations against the judges and he should not do so.

Earlier, Chief Justice Chaudhry, while hearing petitions against the new contempt law, said that those holding public offices could be prosecuted if they were to commit contempt of court.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt of court law: Saving PM could be motive, admits govt counsel</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/415783/contempt-of-court-law-saving-pm-could-be-motive-admits-govt-counsel</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/415783/contempt-of-court-law-saving-pm-could-be-motive-admits-govt-counsel#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 12 22:15:52 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[qamar.zaman]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=415783</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Federation’s lawyer grilled by assertive apex court.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The government’s defence of the contentious contempt law got off to a rather unexpected start on Tuesday. 

The federation’s counsel admitted in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the Contempt of Court Law 2012 could have been aimed at saving the skin of newly-appointed Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf – thereby conceding an important point of contention against the new law: it violates the concept of equality as a person-specific law.

“Yes, this could be a motive,” the counsel for the federation, Abdul Shakoor Paracha, shockingly acknowledged while responding to Justice Khilji Arif Hussain’s no-nonsense question: “(Are you saying) the new law has been introduced to save the prime minister?”

The apex court was questioning over two dozen petitioners about the legal status of the contempt law when Paracha conceded a possible ulterior motive. Since the law was passed, the government has never admitted that the purpose of the legislation was to save the incumbent premier from disqualification.

“Everything (regarding the law) is known and I will not hide anything or lie just because the federation has engaged me as a counsel,” Paracha told the court. But the counsel was also quick to add, “Democratic institutions will not become strong if democratic prime ministers are sent home.”

Federation’s arguments

The government’s counsel didn’t seem to make much of an impression on the court.

While managing to agree on a possible political motive behind the law, Paracha and the court did not see eye to eye on much else. Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observed that the court was not fond of disqualifying prime ministers.

When Paracha pointed to the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case and the disqualification of one prime minister already, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja observed, “… No this is not the case, [the government] has passed a new law in three minutes.”

Paracha then argued that  insisting on the implementation of the NRO judgment was not conducive. “Corruption will not end in one day. Fresh elections are around the corner and things will get better after some time,” he added, to which the chief justice curtly responded: “We have nothing to do with elections.”

The federation’s counsel then took a different tack, arguing that every institution should perform its own role, but the chief justice was quick to respond to this as well: “It is [the government’s] duty to take steps to strengthen democracy whereas it is our duty to interpret law. It is not our job to deal with load-shedding.”

Paracha himself had acknowledged earlier during proceedings that state institutions had failed to deliver, to which Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan observed, “The mere resignation of the chief executive is not enough when state organs fail to deliver; he should be held accountable.”

Referring to the lack of a precedent, Paracha argued that none of the petitioners were aggrieved by the new law, and had only challenged it on the basis of mere apprehensions. There was not a single case in which the court had exercised its jurisdiction on the basis of apprehensions, he added.

The federation’s counsel further requested that the apex court refer the matter to the high courts. Justice Khawaja declined, saying that to do so would merely open a “new Pandora’s box”. Paracha also said that all the petitioners had failed to establish how the new law violates Article 2A of the Constitution and Islamic law.

The chief justice remained unconvinced, saying that the new law had violated the concept of equality in Islam, adding that this had been argued by several petitioners.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 1st, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt law hearing: 'Parliament can form laws which are needed, reasonable'</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/415398/contempt-law-hearing-parliament-can-form-laws-which-are-needed-reasonable</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/415398/contempt-law-hearing-parliament-can-form-laws-which-are-needed-reasonable#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 12 09:08:39 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[web.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=415398</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The case was being heard by a five-member bench headed by Iftikhar Chaudhry.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, while hearing petitions agains the contempt law, has said that the parliament has the right to form those laws which are needed and have a reason behind them, Express News reported on Tuesday.

The case was being heard in the Supreme Court by a five-member bench comprising Iftikhar Chaudhry, who headed the bench, and Justices Shakirullah Jan, Khilji Arif Hussain, Jawad S Khawaja and Tassadduq Hussain Jilani.

During the hearing, the federation’s counsel, Abdul Shakoor Paracha, said the parliament’s authority over law making could not be challenged, reports Dawn.com.

He argued that the new law did not restrict the judiciary’s power in any way and that the law had not been passed to undermine the judiciary, to which the chief justice said that the new law, contradictory to the government’s beliefs, had flaws and being a matter of public interest, could be moved to court.

The petitions had been filed against the new contempt law the very next day after it was signed by President Asif Ali Zardari.

The contempt law was said to be aimed at protecting newly elected Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf from being forced to write the Swiss letter.

In the previous hearing, the Supreme Court had refused the federation’s request for more time to prepare arguments.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt of court act: SC shoots down govt request for more time</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/415300/contempt-of-court-act-sc-shoots-down-govt-request-for-more-time</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/415300/contempt-of-court-act-sc-shoots-down-govt-request-for-more-time#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 12 21:55:25 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[qamar.zaman]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=415300</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Federation to begin defence of new law from today.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[After an exhaustive hearing of over 20 petitions challenging the new contempt law, it is now the government’s turn to defend it.


With all eyes now on the government, its counsel, Abdul Shakoor Paracha, requested for more time to prepare arguments – but this request was shot down by the Supreme Court’s five-member bench.

Monday saw the court open its floor to the 27 petitions challenging the Contempt of Court Act 2012. Among those who had challenged the law was the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), which had called a ‘black day’ last week in protest against the contentious Act.

The PBC’s vice-chairman, Latif Afridi, presented his arguments, in which he contended that the Act violated the fundamental rights defined by the Constitution. He, however, did suggest that an amending ordinance should be issued and the new law should be made in consonance with Article 204.

It was earlier reported that the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party had approached the PBC and had asked for suggestions to amend the contempt law in conformity with the Constitution.

“Pakistan’s democracy and judiciary are both infant,” Afridi said before the court on Monday. He underlined the need to nullify the impression of any conflict between parliament and the judiciary. “There is a need to create an impression that the Supreme Court is acting like a doctor and if a case is brought before it, its role should be to treat the patient and not to kill it, though cancerous limbs ought to be amputated.”

During the course of the hearing, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who is heading the bench, observed that the growing interest of the masses in parliament and judiciary was an indication of public awareness which would strengthen democracy in the country. “Change in public attitude is an encouraging sign,” he stated.

The chief justice said that such debates had always produced good results in Europe in the past and it was a “healthy sign” — and will eventually enable consensus to evolve in a country.

Justice Jawwad S Khawja observed that, as nations mature, difference of opinion should not be seen as adversarial between the two bodies.

The chief justice also observed that the court had gone through the parliamentary debate on the Act and was convinced that they were in good spirit. “After going through the speeches, we learnt that they [parliamentarians] have discussed all aspects of the new law,” he said.

Earlier, the court had consumed an entire day listening to speeches made by parliamentarians. The court had also made certain observations over the role of the opposition, particularly its walkout prior to voting over the bill. The opposition, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) had expressed disappointment over the remarks made by the judges.

Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani observed that the court had gone through some of the best speeches of parliamentarians over the new law, including those of Raza Rabbani, Aitzaz Ahsan and Haji Adeel.

Justice Khawja observed that though some of Haji Adeel’s remarks were critical to the judiciary, it was his right to speak, which has been protected under Articles 68 and 69 of the Constitution. “Parliamentarians enjoy protection like the judiciary,” he said.

From the next hearing, the government through Paracha and Attorney General Irfan Qadir will present the government’s version on the new law.


Published in The Express Tribune, July 31st, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Immunity with impunity</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/414654/immunity-with-impunity</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/414654/immunity-with-impunity#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 12 18:05:23 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[mubeen.bhatti]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=414654</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[There is also a viewpoint that the president has no immunity in light of Islamic injunctions.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The sovereign will of the people does not give it the mandate to flout court orders and make self-serving laws. The primary function of parliament is to make and amend laws that foster security and the welfare of the people. The newly passed contempt of court law flouts the collective wisdom of this sovereign will.

This law provides immunity to a public office holder from contempt charges for not obeying court order(s). Public office holders are servants of the people and must be held accountable for their wrongful actions. Any immunity from charges of contempt of court may provide public office holders with the licence to implement only those decisions of the court that are conducive to their self-interests. As a result, society would be at the mercy of public office holders for dispensation of justice and the whole structure of checks and balances and separation of powers as enshrined in the Constitution would collapse. The law is a legislative act because it has been passed with a simple majority in parliament. Therefore, it is subordinate to the Constitution and may not survive any constitutional challenge.

The Constitution assigns the Court the very delicate duty of safeguarding human dignity and equality by observing a simple rule: ensuring that no one is above the law. Therefore, the Court is duty-bound to strike down any legislative act that violates the sovereign will of the people. In Mahmood Khan Achakzai v Federation, the Court has touched upon the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution. It observed that parliament cannot make a constitutional amendment, which adversely affects the basic structure of the Constitution, whose salient features, among others, include the independence of judiciary to dispense justice and implementation of its decisions in entirety. It is, therefore, quite likely that the contempt law would have been in grave danger even if it had been passed as a constitutional amendment with a two-thirds majority of parliament under Article 238.

With regard to the immunity that the president enjoys, Article 248(2) provides him immunity against criminal proceedings. However, writing the letter to Swiss authorities as per the decision taken in the NRO case has no immunity under any provision of Article 248. The question of immunity may arise after writing the letter, under Article 248(2). The federation may then be compelled to assert the claim of immunity, both in Pakistani and Swiss courts, with the president’s immunity only surviving in Swiss courts provided his immunity claim endures the constitutional challenge in the Pakistani Supreme Court.

There is also a viewpoint that the president has no immunity in light of Islamic injunctions. This opinion is rooted in Article 2A. It would be interesting to see if the Court adopts the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution to declare Article 248(2) unconstitutional, or directs parliament to bring the immunity article in conformity with Islamic injunctions in light of the ruling it gave in Hakim Khan v Federation. Let’s watch the drama unfold.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 30th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>‘Supremacy of parliament’: President, PM’s decisions can’t be challenged, says Naek</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/414522/%e2%80%98supremacy-of-parliament%e2%80%99-president-pm%e2%80%99s-decisions-can%e2%80%99t-be-challenged-says-naek</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/414522/%e2%80%98supremacy-of-parliament%e2%80%99-president-pm%e2%80%99s-decisions-can%e2%80%99t-be-challenged-says-naek#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 12 05:12:26 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[our.correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=414522</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Says court orders don’t apply to them.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The president and prime minister of Pakistan have constitutional protection, and their decisions cannot be challenged, Law Minister Farooq H Naek said on Saturday, underlining the continuing persistence of the government in the face of judicial pressure.


While talking to the media outside the Sindh High Court, Naek said, “Court orders do not apply to them because parliament is a supreme forum which makes the law. Running a government is the executive’s job and the judiciary only has to ensure the implementation of the law.”

He, however, said that the government respects the Supreme Court and does not want any clash between the institutions.

Keen to dispel the impression of tensions between the institutions, Naek said that “We both, judiciary and government, have to relinquish this impression.” He added that not only was an independent judiciary necessary, but there was a dire need to make the whole judicial system free from influence by appointing competent, impartial judges and law officers on merit.

Naek also revealed that the government was contemplating introducing evening courts to accelerate the proceedings of an excess number of pending cases in courts, and would consult the judiciary on the matter.

Responding to a question, he said that government was seriously thinking of appointing women judges, given their shortage in the judiciary. Naek added that bar councils and the law department should have the right to nominate some people for the appointment of judges as well.  “In this connection we can bring an amendment to the law,” he added.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 29th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt law: Don’t point finger at PM till his case is decided, says SC</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/414077/contempt-law-don%e2%80%99t-point-finger-at-pm-till-his-case-is-decided-says-sc</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/414077/contempt-law-don%e2%80%99t-point-finger-at-pm-till-his-case-is-decided-says-sc#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jul 12 04:44:22 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[qamar.zaman]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=414077</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Referring to contempt law, Justice Khawaja says subordinate legislation cannot trump the Constitution.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[A petitioner was barred by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry from pointing a finger at Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf as being a ‘beneficiary’ of the new contempt law until the premier’s case in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation matter is decided.


“It would be unfair to condemn someone in his absence,” remarked Chief Justice Chaudhry, who was heading a five-judge bench on Friday hearing 27 identical petitions challenging a new contempt law.

He asked petitioner Advocate Chaudhry Afrasayab to refrain from mentioning the premier’s name directly given that his case was still pending before another bench – and that the outcome, whether or not he would be charged with contempt, was yet to be known.

“We do not say this law is person specific,” the chief justice added. “This Constitution has actually kept us united. We all are making efforts so that the democratic system flourishes,” he observed.

Raising objections over the new law, Afrasayab said that the legislature, with simple majority, cannot re-write the definition of the contempt of court as mentioned in Article 204 of the Constitution.

He said that the law was unconstitutional and ultra vires to Article 204 (contempt of court) and Article 248 (protection to president, governor, ministers etc) and was unconstitutional. The scope of contempt can only be enhanced, but in this case it has been minimised, he added

The argument prompted Justice Jawwad S Khawaja to observe that subordinate legislation (that is, the contempt law 2012) cannot nullify what has been defined by the Constitution. While discussing the role of members of parliament, Justice Khawaja remarked: “Parliament members are merely servants of the people and nothing more, they even get paid by the public.”

Former president Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Rasheed Razvi, while representing petitioner the Sind Bar Council, said now effectively only the poor could be convicted and punished under the law. Referring to Article 14 (inviolability of dignity of man) of the Constitution, Razvi posed a question: “Are judges not entitled to dignity?”

While addressing the bench, Advocate Zafarullah Khan contended that, in actuality, people would be more affected by the new contempt law than the judges.

He quoted figures of hundreds of thousands of cases of different nature registered every year – and added that the orders and judgments of these cases are implemented either through moral authority or because of the existence of a contempt law. “The court does not have any stick in its hands to get its orders implemented,” he contended.

At this, Chief Justice Chaudhry lamented that, “a job is done only if force is applied, and I don’t know why this culture has emerged.” He added that “[the courts] cannot carry the stick of contempt with us every time for implementation of court orders” and that “we cannot punish only a junior official and exonerate high-ranking ones.”

Justice Khawaja observed that the court was dealing with issues that should not have come to them in the first place. “It is happening because the executive is not performing its role [of] solving the issue of the masses, and people … come to court when they are denied their rights.”

After hearing the arguments of petitioners, the court adjourned the matter for Monday.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 28th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Parliamentarians merely public servants, nothing more: Justice Khawaja</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/413757/parliamentarians-merely-public-servants-nothing-more-justice-khawaja</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/413757/parliamentarians-merely-public-servants-nothing-more-justice-khawaja#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 12 07:35:23 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[web.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=413757</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Everyone collectively striving to maintain a democratic system in country, says chief justice.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Remarking on the conduct of parliament members, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja stated that the servants of the public forget their true place and begin considering themselves the owners of the country, Express News reported on Friday.

“Parliament members are merely servants of the people and nothing more, they even get paid by the public,” said Khawaja.

He is a member of the five-member bench that is hearing petitions against the contempt law in the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, heading the bench, resumed the hearing for petitions lodged against the Contempt of Court Act 2012 passed earlier.

He said that everyone was collectively striving to maintain a democratic system in the country. “The constitution has kept us united,” said Justice Chaudhry.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan, after it received the records for the parliamentary debate that led to the formation of the contempt law, stated that the records would help shed light on the reasons behind the law’s conception.

The court had earlier ordered the federation to submit records of the parliamentary debate.

Chief Justice Chaudhry, on Thursday, rubbished murmurs of a constitutional crisis if the new contempt law was struck down by the apex court.

The Supreme Court has already shot down the government’s plea for forming a full bench on the matter, as well as a request for adjourning the hearing for a longer period of time to allow its counsels to prepare their arguments.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>PML-N walkout: Nisar takes exception to SC comments on opposition</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/413609/pml-n-walkout-nisar-takes-exception-to-sc-comments-on-opposition</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/413609/pml-n-walkout-nisar-takes-exception-to-sc-comments-on-opposition#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 12 22:12:06 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[qamar.zaman]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=413609</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Our member­s did everyt­hing short of taking up sticks in their hands to preven­t the passag­e of the bill.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Expressing disappointment on the court’s scrutiny of the opposition’s failure to resist the controversial Contempt of Court Act, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) said that the party did everything it could to prevent the passage of the legislation, “short of taking up sticks.”


“How can such a statement be made about a party which has been struggling singlehandedly for the independence of the judiciary and rule of law in the country?” asked Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. “Our members made speeches, protested, shouted and did everything short of taking up sticks in their hands to prevent the passage of the bill,” he added.

Nisar, who was overseas when the contempt of court act was presented in the National Assembly, was responding to observations made by a five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, which is hearing petitions challenging the new contempt law. The opposition had insisted for a debate over the bill, to no avail. The opposition later staged a walkout prior to voting on the legislation.

“A walkout is the ultimate and most extreme form of dissent in parliamentary practice as governments in most developed countries do not vote on legislation in the absence of the opposition,” Nisar said.

A statement issued by the opposition leader further said that the five-member bench should have elaborated how the opposition with 90 members in a house of 342 could have stopped the passage of the bill, asking whether the opposition should have snatched the bill to stop its passage.

“PML-N being the opposition party not only stood steadfast against the government’s efforts to amend the contempt law but used every political, legal and parliamentary avenue to prevent the government bulldozing the bill through the assembly,” Nisar said.

Addressing the five-member bench, Nisar said sarcasm and inaccurate comments over the opposition walkout without understanding parliamentary norms and practice was unfair and unjust. “These comments would play into the hands of government,” he added.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 27th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt of court act: ‘Who says there will be a crisis if contempt act struck down?’</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/413668/contempt-of-court-act-%e2%80%98who-says-there-will-be-a-crisis-if-contempt-act-struck-down%e2%80%99</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/413668/contempt-of-court-act-%e2%80%98who-says-there-will-be-a-crisis-if-contempt-act-struck-down%e2%80%99#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 12 21:58:07 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[our.correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=413668</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Chief justice says SC is not bothered about what is speculated upon outside court.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on Thursday rubbished murmurs of a constitutional crisis if the new contempt law was struck down by the apex court.


On Wednesday, the court had asked Abdul Shakoor Piracha, counsel for the federation, to produce the record of parliament’s relevant proceedings on the contempt of court act to see the time consumed in debate. On Thursday, the chief justice, while heading a five-judge bench hearing 27 identical petitions challenging the contentious law, heard speeches given by parliamentarians, in favour and against, the contempt of court act, during parliamentary proceedings.

A petitioner in the case, President Lahore High Court Bar Rawalpindi Division Advocate Ahsanuddin Sheikh, discussed speeches given by Senators Haji Adeel and Azam Khan Hoti of the Awami National Party (ANP) in which they had censured the judiciary and the chief justice in particular.

“The judiciary is strengthening parliament while parliament is pulling legs of the judiciary,” contended Sheikh. Sheikh went on to add that there was fear, outside the courtroom, of a constitutional crisis if the new contempt law was struck down by the apex court.

“Who says that nullifying this law will create a crisis,” the chief justice replied to the petitioner, adding that the court was not bothered with anything that was taking place outside the court.

“We don’t decide on what is said outside. What happens outside the court’s doors does not bother us,” the chief justice said.

Meanwhile, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja observed that though the proceedings of parliament could not be challenged due to Article-69 of the Constitution, certain clauses could be sent back by the court to parliament for a review.

During proceedings, Sheikh also said that the contempt of court act was passed in haste by the government, adding that members of parliament deviated from their oath by passing the law as the government was to submit its reply in the NRO implementation case on July 12.

“The law was passed to protect Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf,” said Sheikh, who is one of over 20 petitioners in this case, which challenges the new contempt act that, among other things, provides immunity to the prime minister and other high public office holders from contempt proceedings. The new contempt law was bulldozed through both houses of parliament shortly after Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf took office and was sent notices by the apex court to implement its orders on the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) case. The same case saw Yousaf Raza Gilani disqualified from premiership and membership of the National Assembly for contempt.

The matter has been was adjourned till Friday (today).

The Supreme Court has already shot down the government’s plea for forming a full bench on the matter, as well as a request for adjourning the hearing for a longer period of time to allow its counsels to prepare their arguments.


Published in The Express Tribune, July 27th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt of Court Act: Apex court intrigued by opposition’s walkout</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/413141/contempt-of-court-act-apex-court-intrigued-by-opposition%e2%80%99s-walkout</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/413141/contempt-of-court-act-apex-court-intrigued-by-opposition%e2%80%99s-walkout#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 12 04:45:31 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[azam.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=413141</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Court obtains record of parliament’s proceedings, questions presidential immunity.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[While questioning the passage of the new Contempt of Court Act 2012 by parliament, the Supreme Court on Wednesday had a few words for the opposition: what was the point of a walkout?


While hearing identical petitions against the new act on Wednesday, a five-member bench, headed by the chief justice, said the opposition should have resisted the act’s passage in parliament instead of staging a walk-out.

“The opposition should have stayed in parliament to resist the ruling party’s move,” observed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.

“Have you ever heard of a walk-out from the US Congress; what kind of conduct is this?” Justice Tasaddaq Hussain Jilani remarked.

The court also obtained a record of parliamentary proceedings to see the time consumed in the debate on the act.

It was presented during Wednesday’s hearing by federation’s counsel Abdul Shakoor Paracha.

‘Constitution does not allow ridiculing the court’

Chief Justice Chaudhry further questioned that if the prime minister has no immunity for contempt proceedings despite Article 248 (1), how could it be extended to the president or governor under Article 248 (2).

Quoting examples of former US presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, he said that no one could violate the order of a magistrate’s court, adding that the Constitution does not allow ridiculing the court in the name of immunity.

Just as the attorney general stood up from his seat to reply, the court asked him to address the question on his turn.

Justice Jilani termed contempt of court powers as the only tool in the hands of the judiciary to enforce its judgments.

“We respect the parliament. They are representatives of the people. We do not have inflated ego. We are just worried about the system,” Justice Tasaddaq Jilani said.

Meanwhile, Advocate AK Dogar, the counsel for one of the petitioners, described the contempt act as a “stillborn” piece of legislation, elaborating that it was a constitutionally dead law. “Judges would become paper tigers, unless the judiciary has a sword and a shield in its hands,” he said.

Advocate Abdul Rahman Siddiqui, appearing on behalf of another petitioner, said the act was a mala fide legislation, enacted without a proper debate. He said that in a way the entire parliament was made hostage and its independence usurped.

The chief justice, however, told him that such a grievance, if existed, could only be raised by a member of the parliament.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 26th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt of Court law: SC orders federation to submit record of argument</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/412811/contempt-of-court-law-sc-orders-federation-to-submit-record-of-argument</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/412811/contempt-of-court-law-sc-orders-federation-to-submit-record-of-argument#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 12 06:44:39 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[web.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=412811</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[A five-member bench ordered the federation to submit the record of the parliamentary argument.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Supreme Court, while hearing petitions against the contempt law, ordered the federation to submit records of the contempt of court argument that took place in the parliament, Express News reported on Wednesday.

A five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and comprising Justices Shakirullah Jan, Tasadduq Jilani, Jawwad S Khawaja and Khilji Arif was conducting the third hearing of the case based on petitions against the law.

Earlier, the federation's counsel had sought time from the Supreme Court of Pakistan as it began hearing 27 petitions challenging the Contempt of Court Act, saying that the case was of high importance.

The controversial legislation – which has been termed a ‘black law’ by the opposition – is aimed at shielding the new premier from contempt proceedings similar to those that led to Yousaf Raza Gilani’s ouster from the country’s top office.

The federal cabinet approved the bill on July 4 after which President Asif Ali Zardari, who has 30 days to sign any bill after approval by both houses of parliament, did not waste much time and put his signature on the draft after overnight passage by the Senate on July 12.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contentious legislation: Contempt act continues to get battered in court</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/412725/contentious-legislation-contempt-act-continues-to-get-battered-in-court</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/412725/contentious-legislation-contempt-act-continues-to-get-battered-in-court#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 12 22:18:02 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[azam.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=412725</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The court was hearing 27 petitions challenging the Contempt of Court Act.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The contempt ordinance of 2003 provides more of a fair trial than the newly-promulgated contempt act, believes Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.


Presiding over a five-member bench hearing petitions challenging the contentious Contempt of Court Act 2012 on Tuesday, the chief justice said the new law was criminal, and did not even provide procedures for civil, criminal, and judicial contempt.

The bench said that, in the presence of the 2003 law, there was no need for the 2012 one. Justice Jawwad S Khawaja remarked that the 2012 law was an attempt to grant immunity to the elite class. He said contempt would become meaningless as a result of this practice. The bench also observed that the Contempt Ordinance 2003 has protection under the 18th Amendment, adding that it was also properly considered law in 2010 when parliamentarians passed the 18th Amendment.

Advocate Hamid Khan, representing the Karachi Bar Association, which is one of the many petitioners in the case, argued that the new contempt law has been passed in hurry, adding: “Actually, in the garb of a new act, the government wants to snatch the court power of regulation mentioned under Article 204 (3) of the Constitution.”

Khan added that the new law is replica of Contempt Act 1976 and only the clause related to immunity to the president, prime minister, governor, chief ministers and ministers is new.  The court observed that, throughout the world, the trend is to try and minimise the scope of immunity, but, in Pakistan, those at the helm of affairs are extending it to all public office holders.

Khan argued that section 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 12 of the Contempt Act 2012 are all against the Constitution. He added that, if these sections are removed from the new law, then the entire act basically could not survive and would be rendered incoherent. In his arguments the KBA’s counsel presented a history of the contempt law in Pakistan, and also compared different laws promulgated in the country at different times.

Ashraf Gujjar, former president of Islamabad High Court Bar Association, contended that the new contempt act is against the basic theme and main structure of the Constitution and aims at creating different classes. Advocate Liaquat Qureshi, another petitioner, argued that the new law was not thoroughly debated before legislation.

The hearing was adjourned till Wednesday.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 25th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt law an attempt at granting immunity to elite class: Justice Khawaja</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/412380/contempt-law-an-attempt-at-granting-immunity-to-elite-class-justice-khawaja</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/412380/contempt-law-an-attempt-at-granting-immunity-to-elite-class-justice-khawaja#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 12 06:18:39 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[web.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=412380</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The court was hearing 27 petitions challenging the Contempt of Court Act.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, while hearing petitions against the new contempt law, remarked that this law was an attempt at granting immunity to the elite class, Express News reported on Tuesday.

He made this statement during the second hearing of the case comprising petitions against the contempt law.

Earlier, during the first hearing, the counsel for the federation had sought time from the Supreme Court of Pakistan as it began hearing 27 petitions challenging the Contempt of Court Act, saying that the case was of high importance.

The bench hearing the cases is headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and includes Justices Shakirullah Jan, Tasadduq Jilani, Jawwad S Khawaja and Khilji Arif.

The controversial legislation – which has been termed a ‘black law’ by the opposition – is aimed at shielding the new premier from contempt proceedings similar to those that led to Yousaf Raza Gilani’s ouster from the country’s top office.

The federal cabinet approved the bill on July 4 after which President Asif Ali Zardari, who has 30 days to sign any bill after approval by both houses of parliament, did not waste much time and put his signature on the draft after overnight passage by the Senate on July 12.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt of court: Can parliament clip court’s power?  No, says apex court</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/412298/contempt-of-court-can-parliament-clip-court%e2%80%99s-power-no-says-apex-court</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/412298/contempt-of-court-can-parliament-clip-court%e2%80%99s-power-no-says-apex-court#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 12 22:08:46 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[azam.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=412298</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Full bench dismissed; chief justice says no one has blanket cover – immunity only for ‘official acts’.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The first hearing on the matter did not bode well for the new contempt law, with Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observing on Monday that parliament does not have the power to curtail the court’s jurisdiction.


Requests for a full bench, and more time were also turned down.

Heading a five-member bench that began hearing petitions challenging the recent adoption of a contentious contempt of court law, the chief justice observed that parliament cannot go beyond Article 204 of the Constitution, which deals with the topic of contempt. Petitioners, who number no less than 27 in total, believe that the new law slashes the courts’ powers and allows criticism of the higher judiciary. Some have asked for amendments to the new law.

The chief justice also questioned the urgency of passing the new law – which took less than a week from its initial introduction to its signing into law by the president. The new law was bulldozed through both houses of parliament shortly after Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf took office and was sent notices by the apex court to implement its orders on the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) case. The same case saw Yousaf Raza Gilani disqualified from premiership and membership of the National Assembly for contempt.

During the proceedings, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja observed that Article 204 empowered the court to frame the rules on this matter, not the executive. The larger bench also expressed its surprise over the omission of the word “court” in the new law, which effectively means that contempt of court will no longer be an offence, they observed.

Justice Tassadaq Jilani, while referring to the new law, said that the time frame to file an appeal against a court decision has been extended from 30 days to 60 days. However, he pointed out, while an appeal is the right of a convict, it is a controlled right.

On the point of immunity, the top judge of the country remarked that there is no blanket immunity cover for anyone in the Constitution.  Justice Jilani questioned why there was a need for a new law when Article 248 already talks about immunity for public office holders to the extent of their performance of official duties. Chief Justice Chaudhry made it clear that the immunity is only to the extent of official acts and there is no blanket immunity for anyone.

The observations made by top judge of the country are of particular significance as the incumbent government of Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) claims absolute immunity for President Asif Ali Zardari in the NRO implementation case – wherein the apex court is asking the government to write a letter to Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases against the president. The alleged graft was committed at a time the PPP co-chairman was not the president.

Govt seeks time, full bench

The counsel for the federal government, Abdul Shakoor Paracha, sought time from the Supreme Court, arguing that the case if of high importance. Paracha told the court that he was approached by the federal government just a day before (Sunday), and said that he required some time to study the case and take further directives from the government. He also asked for the matter to be heard by a full bench of the Supreme Court.

Attorney-General Irfan Qadir, too, made a similar request – terming the case a first-of-its-kind – and asked for two weeks.

The court turned down the requests, with Chief Justice Chaudhry saying that the case was not a first-of-its-kind. He recalled that a similar case in 1996 was decided by a four-member bench headed by former chief justice Ajmal Mian.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 24th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Petitions against contempt law: Federation seeks time from SC</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/411996/petitions-against-contempt-law-federal-ministry-seeks-time-from-sc</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/411996/petitions-against-contempt-law-federal-ministry-seeks-time-from-sc#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 12 05:37:21 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[web.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=411996</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[AG says case is first of its kind and that a period of two weeks should be granted to the federation.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Counsel for the federation sought time from the Supreme Court of Pakistan as it began hearing the 27 petitions challenging the Contempt of Court Act 2012 on Monday, saying that the case if of high importance, Express News reported.

All petitioners, including Pakistan Bar Council, Balochistan Bar Association’s former president Baz Muhammad Kakar among other were present inside the courtoom where a five-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry was hearing the petitions.

The petitioners maintained that certain clauses in the contempt law were against the Constitution and that they should be omitted.

One of the petitioners, former Islamabad High Court Bar Association president Advocate Ashraf Gujjar had directly challenged presidential immunity on the grounds that it is against both the Constitution and Islam.

During the hearing, federations counsel Shakoor Paracha prayed to the court that he was approached by the federal government yesterday (Sunday) and that he required some time to study the case and take further directives from the ministry.

Attorney General Irfan Qadir said that the case is first of its kind and that a period of two weeks should be granted to the federal government.

Differing from the attorney general’s request, Justice Chaudhry said that the case is not the first of its kind, but many such cases were being filed in the Supreme Court.

He further observed that once the petitioners are done giving their statements, the federal government should start giving their statement, too.

The controversial legislation – which has been termed a ‘black law’ by the opposition – is aimed at shielding the new premier from contempt proceedings similar to those that led to Yousaf Raza Gilani’s ouster from the country’s top office.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>New contempt law: Presidential immunity up for debate at court hearing</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/411906/new-contempt-law-presidential-immunity-up-for-debate-at-court-hearing</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/411906/new-contempt-law-presidential-immunity-up-for-debate-at-court-hearing#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 12 03:47:21 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[azam.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=411906</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Prime Minister Ashraf and law minister pore over a legal strategy for the cases scheduled this week.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[With the Supreme Court all set to hear petitions challenging the new contempt law on Monday, the concept of presidential immunity will come under discussion for the first time in the country’s history.


A five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, will initiate the hearing of 27 petitions challenging the Contempt of Court Act 2012. The controversial legislation – which has been termed a ‘black law’ by the opposition – is aimed at shielding the new premier from contempt proceedings similar to those that led to Yousaf Raza Gilani’s ouster from the country’s top office.

One of the petitioners, former Islamabad High Court Bar Association president Advocate Ashraf Gujjar has directly challenged presidential immunity on the grounds that it is against both the Constitution and Islam.

He says the draft of the new law gave him a chance to make the court realise that presidential immunity is contradictory to the principle of equity, as enshrined in Article 4 of the Constitution. Gujjar also maintains that the concept is at odds with articles 2, 2A and 5 of the Constitution as well. According to Article 2, no law that contradicts Islamic injunctions can be promulgated in the country.

By ‘poorly drafting’ the new law, the government has provided a chance to settle the immunity issue once and for all, he added.

Presidential immunity has been cited by the government as a hurdle to the implementation of apex court rulings against the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO). Gilani had endorsed the argument while refusing apex court directives to write a letter to Swiss authorities asking the reopening of graft cases against President Zardari – a move that eventually led to his disqualification as the prime minister.

Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf now faces the same scenario, having been told by the apex court to write the letter by the 25th of this month or face ‘appropriate action’.

Under the new law, immunity has been provided to all public office holders in the light of Article 248. Gujjar claimed this revealed government intentions to derail court proceedings in the NRO implementation case.

Government’s legal strategy

On Sunday, Law Minister Farooq H Naek and Prime Minister Ashraf held a meeting to finalise a strategy for the cases scheduled this week.

During the meeting, Naek also informed the premier about his contacts with Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), which has also petitioned against promulgation of the new contempt law.

A senior official told The Express Tribune that the government would appreciate if the Supreme Court referred the matter back to parliament along with PBC’s recommendations on the new law. Pakistan Peoples Party senators Aitzaz Ahsan, Raza Rabbani and Babar Awan had also expressed reservations over a few clauses of the law.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 23rd, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>The president’s riposte</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/411730/the-president%e2%80%99s-riposte</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/411730/the-president%e2%80%99s-riposte#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 12 17:23:11 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[editorial]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=411730</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[It is very difficult to stand up to a court that enjoys the support of civil society.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[What looked like a riposte to Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, President Asif Ali Zardari said on July 19 in Karachi that parliament was supreme as it expressed the will of the people. He said that “parliament had every right to enact laws and would continue to do so in the future”. The chief justice had earlier said that the “Constitution trumped all institutions” and stood supreme in Pakistan instead of parliament. Very soon, the judiciary will have occasion to give its verdict on the matter when it hears the case against the ruling coalition’s passage of a law relating to contempt of court.

The presidential remark was also a repartee to the Lahore High Court, which ordered him “to cease using the presidency for political purposes by September this year”. His answer to the order was given to party men and allies gathered around him: parliament was his constituency and that no law barred the president from meeting his constituents. He asserted: “No one can bar me from meeting with elected representatives of the PPP in the presidency. You have elected me and I have become president because of your votes”. He added that “those who want to restrict political forces would not succeed”.

If he sounded overly aggressive, he quickly applied the palliative: “It is necessary for the system’s stability that every state institution respects the mandate of other institutions. However, while some institutions may, at times, appear to be overstepping their mandate in developing democracies, this is part of the system’s evolution and should not be a matter of concern”. The world outside, too, is aware of what is happening in Pakistan and has been advising ‘restraint’ to the Supreme Court and asking it not to get into the vicious circle of precedents of disqualifying prime ministers.

The judiciary has been maltreated in the past and books have been written about how the judges in Pakistan were humiliated by dictators and military rulers. The judiciary, today, is responding to this past record and is trying to prove to an admiring civil society that it is possible for the courts to stand up to coercion and challenge rulers defaulting on governance and luxuriating instead in corruption. President Zardari, while rightly putting on record his opinion about the supremacy of parliament, must also be mindful of the abysmal performance of the party in power. It is very difficult to stand up to a court that enjoys the support of civil society, to say nothing of the opposition hitting the road all guns firing trying to topple the government.

There are other factors the people of Pakistan must keep in mind in the interest of fairness. If the executive is constantly hounded by other institutions and made to feel insecure, the outreach of the executive would be curtailed and service delivery affected; ministers feeling unsure about survival in power would begin to indulge in graft. In Pakistan, some factors are atypical of the Third World paradigm. There is terrorism to cope with, which successfully exercises intimidation to persuade the politicians to blink terrorism when it happens against the ruling party. Since law and order is the domain of the provinces, most damage is done not at the federal level but at the grass roots. On top of that, there is the reality of the supremacy of the army, which seems unable to defend the citizen either against the terrorist or foreign invasion.

President Zardari also took cognisance of the growing disenchantment of the Sindhi hinterland with the PPP leadership. There is much to be said about the feudal aspects of the party with firm constituencies but neglect of rapidly growing cities in Sindh’s interior. The PPP faces the challenge of the nationalist parties in the interior where Sindhis complain of leaders who live comfortably in Karachi and rarely visit them. This has allowed the PML-N to plant its feet more firmly in Sindh, even as Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf makes inroads in Punjab and urban Sindh.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 23rd, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>27 petitions: SC to start hearing on Contempt of Court Act</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/411744/27-petitions-sc-to-start-hearing-on-contempt-of-court-act</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/411744/27-petitions-sc-to-start-hearing-on-contempt-of-court-act#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 12 16:29:10 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[azam.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=411744</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Prime minister, law minister hold meeting to discuss strategy.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[A five-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry would start the hearing of some 27 petitions against the new contempt of court law on Monday.

The Contempt of Court Act 2012 was enacted a few weeks ago amid opposition’s protest which termed the new legislation as a ‘black law’, saying it was aimed at saving the new Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf from contempt of court.

Ashraf met with Law Minister Farook H Naek on Sunday to devise a strategy regarding the cases scheduled for next week, including the hearing of some 27 petitions against the new Contempt of Court act.

Naek informed the prime minister about his contacts with Pakistan Bar Counsel (PBC), who also petitioned the Supreme Court against promulgation of the new contempt law.

Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) senators Aitzaz Ahsan, Raza Rabbani and Babar Awan had also expressed reservations over a few clauses of the law.

On July 14, during a hearing on the contempt law case, the court had issued notices to the prime minister, law minister, the Senate chairman, the National Assembly speaker and others.

The implementation of the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) order revolves around presidential immunity and it is going to come under discussion for the first time in the Supreme Court from Monday.

Earlier, former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani was disqualified by the Supreme Court for having committed contempt of court for not writing a letter, as per decision in the NRO case, to Swiss authorities seeking reopening of money laundering cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.

Immediately after the promulgation of the contempt law, some 27 petitioners had challenged it.

One of the petitioners, Advocate Ashraf Gujjar, former President Islamabad High Court Bar Association has directly challenged the presidential immunity, saying it was against the very concept of Islam and the Constitution.

Gujjar said that the new law was drafted poorly and he notified the court that immunity for president is against the principal of equity ensured in the article 4 of the Constitution adding that the immunity concept was also contrary to article 2, 2A, and 5 of the Constitution.

Article 2 deals with Objective Resolution that says that no law against the Islamic junction could be made in Pakistan.

Gujjar said that the government has provided a chance to settle the issue of immunity once and forever. Under the new law, immunity was sought for all public office holders in the light of article 248 that shows the contentions of the government to manage the court proceedings in the NRO implementation case.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>New contempt law: PPP, PBC agree to revisit three clauses</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/411596/new-contempt-law-ppp-pbc-agree-to-revisit-three-clauses</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/411596/new-contempt-law-ppp-pbc-agree-to-revisit-three-clauses#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 12 04:45:29 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[abdul.manan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Punjab]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=411596</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Lawyers’ body has filed a petition in the SC suggesting the agreed changes.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[With the Supreme Court scheduled to take up petitions challenging the contempt of court act 2012 on Monday, the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) has approached a major stakeholder, the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), to suggest changes to the contentious legislation.


The PBC, which will observe a ‘black day’ on Monday on the matter, has been told that its stance and suggested amendments to the law would be incorporated, top officials told The Express Tribune.

The sources in both the PPP and PBC told The Express Tribune said that both parties have agreed to resolve the matter after hectic negotiations. In this regard, the PBC filed a petition in the apex court on Saturday listing its objections to the law and suggesting changes.

The PBC and PPP are believed to have agreed to try to convince the court to refer the act back to parliament with the suggested changes.

PBC Chairman Akhtar Hussian, while talking to The Express Tribune, said that if the PPP accepts its objections on three articles, there could be a positive outcome. He voiced hoped that this would be the case, and the ruling party would also incorporate the court’s suggestions, if there are any. However, he hastened to add that no one knew what would happen in the duration of the hearings, and if the apex court simply struck down the bill entirely.

He said that every law formed by the house has a legal cover, so PBC regarded the new contempt act as being according to the law- for now.

The three points

According to Akhtar Hussain, the PBC has three objections: one is that it does not believe that immunity should be extended to so many high-office holders in government. Instead, he said, immunity should be given only to the president and four governors. He said that this article is in clear violation of Article 204 of the Constitution, which grants equality.

The second point is that PBC is against a ban of publication of in-camera proceedings.

He said that everyone has the right to access, and this was a clear violation of basic rights.

The third point is that court should have the power to proceed with contempt charges in order have its orders complied to.

In the new contempt law, courts have been stopped from proceeding until a final verdict is reached on the case and its appeal.

Akhtar Hussain further said that his office has filed a petition to this effect in the apex court, which would be heard on July 23.

Special Assistant to Prime Minister on Political Affairs Chaudhry Fawad Hussain, while talking to The Express Tribune, confirmed these developments, and welcomed the PBC’s recognizing of a law passed by parliament.

He said that the government is fully ready to bring the PBC’s objections into parliament for fresh approval. Fawad added that the PPP would also accord the same treatment to the court’s suggestions, if there were any.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 22nd, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>‘Black Day’: Bars call Monday strike against contempt law</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/411482/%e2%80%98black-day%e2%80%99-bars-call-monday-strike-against-contempt-law</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/411482/%e2%80%98black-day%e2%80%99-bars-call-monday-strike-against-contempt-law#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 12 02:57:16 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[our.correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Punjab]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=411482</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Lawyers across the province would go on a full day strike on Monday, July 23.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Punjab Bar Council will observe a “black day” on Monday in protest at the Contempt of Court Act 2012, a new law passed by the National Assembly which makes ministers, chief ministers and the prime minister immune from prosecution for contempt.


In a statement issued on Saturday, the Punjab Bar Council Executive Committee Chairman Rana Asif Saeed said lawyers across the province would go on a full day strike on Monday, July 23. Black flags would be hoisted at bar rooms all over the Punjab, he said.

The Lahore High Court Bar Association also gave a separate call for a full day strike on Monday in protest at the new contempt of court law.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 22nd, 2012.

&nbsp;]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contentious legislation: Extent of parliament’s supremacy in the dock from Monday</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/411229/contentious-legislation-extent-of-parliament%e2%80%99s-supremacy-in-the-dock-from-monday</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/411229/contentious-legislation-extent-of-parliament%e2%80%99s-supremacy-in-the-dock-from-monday#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 12 23:05:38 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[irfan.ghauri]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=411229</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Five-member SC bench to hear petitions challenging new contempt law.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[A heated debate over the supremacy of parliament has done the rounds over the last month – and it will now make its way into courtroom number 1 from Monday.


The Supreme Court (SC) announced on Friday that it will take up multiple petitions next week challenging the legitimacy of the contempt of court law recently adopted by parliament.

The announcement comes a day after the president’s public statement that parliament had every right to make laws – referring to a contentious passing of a law that absolves all high office holders in the government, including the prime minister, from contempt of court proceedings for their actions.

Armed with the new law, the incumbent Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) is believed to be aiming to restrain what it feels is an over assertive judiciary. The Supreme Court sent former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani packing last month on contempt charges, while the future of his successor is also up in the air after he, too, has dragged his feet on court pertaining to National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) case. The court had ordered that a letter be written to Swiss authorities seeking the reopening of graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari and his late spouse, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

According to the case list for next week, a five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry himself, will hear the case on July 23. The bench will include Justices Shakirullah Jan, Tasadduq Jilani, Jawwad S Khawaja and Khilji Arif Hussain.

Since the contempt legislation was signed into law by President Zardari on July 13, over a dozen petitions have been filed in different registries of the apex court.

The matter will be taken up two days before the deadline set by the court for Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf to comply with its orders. The court is scheduled to hear the NRO implementation case on July 25, where Prime Minister Ashraf is expected to update the court on whether or not he will comply with court orders.

The chief justice has already conducted a preliminary hearing of cases pertaining to the new contempt of court law at the Quetta Registry of the Supreme Court, after which notices were issued to the federation, Prime Minister Ashraf, chairman Senate, National Assembly Speaker Fehmida Mirza, Law Minister Farooq H Naek, Attorney General Irfan Qadir and the cabinet division.

Speaker of the National Assembly Dr Fehmida Mirza confirmed receiving the court notice and said that her secretariat would reply after consulting with legal experts.

Before the court initiated formal proceedings on the contempt of court law, veiled remarks were issued by both serving and retired judicial officers against it, while government functionaries at the highest level have alluded that they will be defending it with full force.

In an address to a lawyers’ assembly in Karachi, the chief justice remarked that the Constitution is supreme and the courts have the right to scrap any legislation which is against the basic sprit of the Constitution.

On Friday, former senior most SC judge, Justice (Retd) Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, while addressing Lahore High Court Bar Association, endorsed the statement of chief justice of Pakistan on the issue. He said that the apex court could strike down any law in conflict with the Constitution. “Parliament has no authority to cut the Supreme Court’s powers and it cannot make laws against basic human rights,” said Ramday.

When asked about the government’s defence strategy, Attorney General Irfan Qadir said, “Please wait for July 23rd. The court proceedings will be open and things will be clear to everyone.”


(Read: Courts and controversy)

Published in The Express Tribune, July 21st, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Right and wrong: New contempt law can lead to anarchy, says Asma Jahangir</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/411098/right-and-wrong-new-contempt-law-can-lead-to-anarchy-says-asma-jahangir</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/411098/right-and-wrong-new-contempt-law-can-lead-to-anarchy-says-asma-jahangir#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 12 21:43:23 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[our.correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Punjab]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=411098</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[‘Courts also need to exercise restraint in issuing contempt notices’.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[ “The new contempt law that grants immunity to public functionaries against contempt of court can lead to great anxiety among the people to an extent that can lead to anarchy” former Supreme Court Bar Association president Asma Jahangir said on Friday.


She was speaking at the South Asia Free Media Association.

Expressing her reservation over certain provisions in the new contempt law, Jahangir criticised the immunity granted to holders of public office under the new law.

She said these provisions in the new contempt law were in violation of Article 19-A of the Constitution that protected the right to the access to information.

She said according to the new law a contempt notice could not be issued unless a final judgment in the original case was issued. This, she said, led to curtailing the rights of the judiciary.

“During this interim period, contempt of court becomes easier,” she added.

However, at the same time Jahangir also suggested that the courts should exercise restraint in issuing contempt notices.

“Even if a person stares [at the judge], the court issues him a contempt notice,” she said.

She argued that such frequent issuance of notices could leave people scared to criticise the courts and discourage the people from pointing out things “deserving criticism”.

This would also lead to criticism from the people, she added.

She said issuing contempt notices was a tool for administration of justice and should be used only when actually required.

“Parliament has the right to make laws and the judiciary can intervene if these laws are in conflict with the provision of basic rights of a citizen,” she said.

Jahangir said it was not about which institution was supreme, but about the parliament and the judiciary respecting each other.

Speaking about the ban on dual nationality holders in public offices, Jahangir said a constitutional amendment was required.

Any law, she said, that was formulated to protect the interest of a single person never survived long.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 21st, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>New contempt law: SC forms larger bench, to hear cases on July 23</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/410921/new-contempt-law-sc-forms-larger-bench-to-hear-cases-on-july-23</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/410921/new-contempt-law-sc-forms-larger-bench-to-hear-cases-on-july-23#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 12 07:36:35 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[web.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=410921</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[A preliminary hearing was conducted at Quetta registry after which notices were issued to top offices.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Supreme Court has constituted a five-member bench for hearing cases pertaining to petitions filed against the new contempt of court law and will hear them on July 23, Express News reported on Friday.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, will include Justices Shakirullah Jan, Tasadduq Jilani, Jawwad S Khawaja and Khilji Arif.

The chief justice conducted a preliminary hearing of the cases at the Quetta Registry of the Supreme Court after which notices were issued to the federation, Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, chairman Senate, National Assembly Speaker Fehmida Mirza, Law Minister Farooq H Naek, Attorney General Irfan Qadir and the cabinet division.

At least 13 petitions have been filed against the law that was signed by President Asif Ali Zardari on July 13 in an attempt to grant immunity to all public office holders against contempt of court.

Within a day of its final approval, two petitions were filed in the Supreme Court’s Lahore and Quetta registries challenging it.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Breaking silence: Parliament supreme, can enact any law, says Zardari</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/410821/breaking-silence-parliament-supreme-can-enact-any-law-zardari</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/410821/breaking-silence-parliament-supreme-can-enact-any-law-zardari#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 12 00:20:40 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Hafeez Tunio]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=410821</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[President says no law bars him from meeting PPP representatives at the Presidency.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Having maintained a public silence on a number of new issues that have cropped up between the government and the judiciary, the president has finally spoken out.


With the contentious new contempt law set to be taken by the apex court, President Asif Ali Zardari on Thursday said parliament had every right to enact laws, and would continue to do so in the future. In an apparent retort to remarks by the chief justice of Pakistan who said that the Constitution trumped all institutions, President Zardari said that parliament was supreme as it expressed the will of the people.

Addressing a gathering of ministers, senators, members of the National and Provincial Assemblies (MNAs, MPAs) and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP)’s divisional and district office bearers at the Sindh Chief Minister House, the president also indirectly rubbished an order by the Lahore High Court to cease using the Presidency for political purposes by September this year. He maintained that his office was a part of parliament under the Constitution and meets with other parliamentarians since ‘parliament was his constituency’. He added that no law barred the president from meeting his constituents. “No one can bar me from meeting with elected representatives of PPP at the President House. You have elected me and I have become president because of your votes,” he said.

The president also said that those who wanted to restrict political forces would not succeed.

He said that it was necessary for the system’s stability that every state institution respected the mandate of other institutions. However, he remained calm about the situation, saying that, while some institutions may, at times, appear to be overstepping their mandate in developing democracies, this was part of the system’s evolution and should not be a matter of concern.

He said that the PPP was not new to the “conspiracies of anti-democratic forces” and had been fighting them for the last four decades, successfully surviving all sorts of “propaganda.” He added that no conspiracies or propaganda can weaken the party.

Meanwhile, President Zardari asked Sindh Chief Minister Qaim Ali Shah to create more employment opportunities in the province.

He also advised other ministers, legislators and PPP office bearers to maintain contact with the people in order to address their issues.

Referring to the law and order situation in Karachi, President Zardari underscored the need for equipping law-enforcement authorities with state-of-the-art tools to combat criminals in an effective manner.

He said Karachi, being the hub of the country’s economic activities, was also suffering because of the rapid changes at the international level.


Published in The Express Tribune, July 20th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt for the rest</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/410556/contempt-for-the-rest</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/410556/contempt-for-the-rest#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 12 19:14:46 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[nadir.hassan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=410556</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Contempt of Court Act grants an exemption for Prime Minister from the constitutional law that governs the country.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[There are few who would disagree that Pakistan has a dual justice system. Those who have the means to escape accountability for their flagrant law-breaking do so with obscene flagrancy. Paying taxes is a punishment that is reserved only for those who are paid a salary and thus have their share to the national exchequer cut off at the source. If you are lucky enough to own a business or have connections with those who matter, then taxation is an alien concept that you may have heard of, something akin to the Loch Ness Monster but not something that you have ever actually experienced in the flesh.

All right-thinking people obviously condemn the ease with which the most wealthy and powerful among us get away with flouting the law. As bad as being able to get away with not paying your burden of tax revenue may be, what truly stings is that this state of affairs breeds inequality, with a different rules set for people who can afford to ignore the law.

How, then, is the recent contempt of judiciary bill passed by the National Assembly any less unfair than the apartheid-like tax system prevalent in the country? You have a group of lawmakers who have decided that their leaders deserve an exemption from the constitutional law that governs the country. Sure, like those who dodge their taxes, the parliamentarians have high-sounding reasons to explain why they believe an exception needs to be carved out of the law for themselves. Just like most industrialists say that they don’t pay taxes since giving money to such corrupt governments would be quite immoral, members of parliament argue that their leaders need to be protected from a judiciary drunk on its own power.

For the sake of argument, let’s concede that the Supreme Court exceeded its mandate in charging the prime minister with contempt of court. I happen to disagree with that contention since flouting an order of the judiciary should be somehow punishable. But, even if the Court erred, making a permanent law on the basis of one flawed judgment is always a bad idea. In order to protect future hypothetical heads of government from being kicked out by an indignant judiciary, the National Assembly has now given prime ministers carte blanche to ignore each and every verdict handed out by the Supreme Court. And if we look at the history of this country, leaders who consider themselves above the law of the land are far more prevalent than rogue Supreme Courts. These future leaders’ disdain for such trifles as Supreme Court verdicts have now been codified into law.

This same attitude, which says that the most powerful in the country need even further indemnity from the consequences of the law, is already written into the Constitution. The 1973 Constitution is a very fine document so long as you ignore all the exceptions written in it. We are guaranteed all our freedoms — so long as they don’t end up hurting the delicate feelings of the judiciary, the armed forces or those who are religiously sensitive. What these exceptions do is essentially nullify the constitutional protections that precede them. The right to free speech must include the right to offend sacred cows. Similarly, any punishment prescribed by law must be equally applicable to everyone or they just end up being a hammer with which to beat down those who do not have sufficient power or money. Even loyalists of the PPP, who feel hard done by, should not end up in a position where they defend a system that only provides justice to some.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 20th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Zardari signs contempt of court amendment bill</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/407283/zardari-signs-contempt-of-court-amendment-bill</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/407283/zardari-signs-contempt-of-court-amendment-bill#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 12 09:36:37 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[web.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=407283</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Bill provides immunity from contempt proceedings to high office holders.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[President Asif Ali Zardari gave his consent to the controversial contempt of court amendment bill on Thursday, Express News has reported. 

The bill will provide immunity from contempt proceedings to high office holders, including the prime minister, president, chief ministers, federal and provincial ministers as well as governors.

It had earlier been passed by the National Assembly on Monday and the Senate on Wednesday.

The move is key given that Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf’s reply is due on whether he would be following the court directives on writing a letter to Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari and his late wife, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

The cases had been closed earlier under the controversial NRO, which was struck down by the court as void ab initio in 2009.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt of court bill: Bar associations divided over strike call</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/407050/contempt-of-court-bill-bar-associations-divided-over-strike-call</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/407050/contempt-of-court-bill-bar-associations-divided-over-strike-call#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 12 02:36:26 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[umer.farooq]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=407050</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Peshawar High Court Bar Association refuses to boycott court proceedings.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Differences emerged between bar associations in Peshawar after a strike call against the contempt of court bill.


In a press statement issued on Wednesday, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council (KPBC) announced to boycott  courts on Thursday to protest the new bill in solidarity with the apex court. However, the Peshawar High Court Bar Association (PHCBA) has refused to comply.

The press release stated that the amendments were meant to give cover to the president and the prime minister and said they were discriminatory and contradictory to the law.

The amendments will provide relief to some influential people and not to the general public, it said.

“The KPBC condemns the bill and announces boycott from court appearances on Thursday to show solidarity with the judiciary.

Lawyers will not appear before the court,” the statement said.  However, despite the KPBC’s call, the PHCBA was reluctant to stay away from the court and refused to boycott court proceedings. PHCBA’s General- Secretary Qazi Jawad said: “We have trust in the courts and admit that the KPBC is an authority and can call for a strike, but we will not comply with it.”

Published in The Express Tribune, July 12th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Contempt of Court bill: Zardari to take governors into confidence</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/406579/contempt-of-court-bill-zardari-to-take-governors-into-confidence</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/406579/contempt-of-court-bill-zardari-to-take-governors-into-confidence#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 12 04:10:41 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[our.correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=406579</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA['It will be an important meeting given the recent tension between judiciary and government.']]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[President Asif Ali Zardar has convened a high-level meeting at Bilawal House on Wednesday to discuss the contempt of court and dual nationality legislation.


The governors of all provinces and president of Azad Jammu &amp; Kashmir Sardar Muhammad Yaqub Khan will specially attend the meeting. Sources said that the president would take all the governors into confidence on the controversial legislation.

The party sources said that it will be an important meeting given the recent tension between judiciary and government.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 11th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item>	</channel>
                </rss>
