Stalemate continues: SC gives govt one more day to start NRO defence

No federal representation is the best justification to dispose of the petition: CJ.


Qaiser Zulfiqar April 19, 2011

ISLAMABAD:


Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on Monday asked who will defend the defunct National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) if nobody is willing to argue on behalf of the federation.


The prime minister is the representative of the federation and perhaps he should be asked to come forward to plead the case, Justice Chaudhry observed after the attorney-general of Pakistan (AGP) and the advocate on record (AOR) declined to argue during the hearing of the NRO review.

The AGP said he had suggested an alternative to the federation which he could not disclose to the bench. He asked the 17-member full court to postpone the hearing of the NRO review appeal for a day.

The chief justice said the court may easily dispose of the appeal. “Seek instructions from the federation and submit your answer by Tuesday,” he directed the AGP and extended the deadline by one day.

Additional Attorney General (AAG) KK Agha submitted that the federation did not permit him to argue the case. Therefore, in pursuance of rules, he could not represent the federation.

The fact that there is no one to represent the federation is the best justification for disposing of the petition, the chief justice. The bench observed that the AGP as the federation’s chief law officer may argue the case. After the break, he informed the bench that though the federation has expressed confidence in him, it would like to hire Khalid Ranjha as its counsel.

No one is willing to argue the case.  Parliament did not debate the ordinance either when the Supreme Court referred the NRO to the legislature, the bench observed. This case is delaying the hearing of the 18th amendment case, the chief justice remarked.

The apex court issued a show cause notice to AOR Raja Abdul Ghafoor to explain why his name should not be removed from the roll of the Advocates-on-Record in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules, for expressing the inability to continue on account of indisposition.

A show cause notice has also been issued to Solicitor General, Ministry of Law, Nasir Ali Shah, to explain why action should not be taken against him for making an incorrect statement before the court, which resulted in embarrassment for the federal government.

The AOR had informed the court that he was unable to argue the case because of medical reasons. He said he requested the federation to disassociate him from the case three months ago.

Nasir Ali Shah said that Abdul Ghafoor requested that he be disassociated from the case but the application is now missing. The court observed that he disassociated Abdul Ghafoor from the case without any record and replaced him with AOR Syed Zafar Abbas Naqvi on his written request on April 14.  The court observed that AOR Abdul Ghafoor has been regularly appearing in this case and has never before cited medical reasons for withdrawal from a case.  It is perhaps in view of the orders passed by this court on April 11, 12 and 14 stating that the AOR represent the federation if the AAG is denied permission that he had a letter issued for his replacement. According to the rules he has to argue the case in the absence of the government counsel.

The court adjourned the hearing till Tuesday on the AGP’s request.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 19th, 2011.


COMMENTS (20)

Shaheena | 13 years ago | Reply This is simple, let the govt has basic right to argue the case. Two state institutions should act mature. Will this SC will act intransigently if there was a martial law. SC should show wisdom and sagacity and not personal bias! there are 17 judges and why not even a single judge has not shown more sagacious gesture. our country needs more sagacity.
Mirza | 13 years ago | Reply In any civilized country and even the richest countries of the world a bench of 17 SC judges is unheard of. Like Alibaba and 40 thieves these judges have nothing better to do except dealing with political cases. How about murder, treason, and all the appeal cases languishing for decades? Each of these trial should have been in the HC and SC is only and appeals court. Nowhere in the world cases start from a point where they should go only for the final appeal. In the US, there cannot be more than 9 SC judges not like Alibaba and the gang. Mirza, USA
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ