SC issues detailed NRO verdict, addresses govt objections
Says federation failed to establish it was ‘aggrieved’ by court’s decision.
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court issued a detailed verdict on the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) on Thursday night, saying that the federation had failed to establish that it was aggrieved by the court’s decision against the controversial ordinance.
Following the detailed judgment, the government will face renewed pressure from the country’s highest court to reopen Swiss money laundering cases against President Asif Ali Zardari, who is currently hospitalised in Dubai for medical treatment.
On November 24, a 17-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, dismissed a review petition of the federation against the NRO and directed it to comply with its decision without any delay.
“Before parting with this judgment, we may like to observe that the Court was conscious of the fact that although neither the Parliament approved the NRO as an act nor defended the law and rather did not oppose revival of criminal cases, this petition for review was filed on behalf of the federation; that despite repeated queries of the Court, learned counsel did not elaborate as to how the federation was an ‘aggrieved person’ or disclose any other ‘sufficient cause’ to fall within the parameters of the law regulating the review jurisdiction,” said the detailed judgment.
It further addressed objections raised on every single paragraph of the NRO decision by the federation. The judgment also stated that it had given permission to former law minister Dr Babar Awan to represent the federation “so that if we find that a case for review is made, we will allow the application seeking permission to argue, which could only have been argued under the Supreme Court rules by the counsel who appeared for the federation in the main case.”
“The court in Para 178 of the judgment merely held that the communications addressed by the then attorney general were unauthorised and the federal government was directed to take steps to seek the revival of the request in that context. Neither during the hearing of the main case, learned counsel for the federal government placed on record any instructions of the federation in this context nor during the hearing of this review petition, any such material was laid before this court which could persuade us to hold that the said communication by the then attorney general was duly authorised to warrant its review,” the judgment said.
The court also clarified that it had not attributed any motive to former prime minister Benazir Bhutto saying, “Para 44 of the judgment under review merely makes a reference to late Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto’s book “Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West”. The observations made in Para 45 of the National Reconciliation Ordinance, 2007 are qualified by the expression ‘prima facie’ but the finding that the said ordinance ‘extended benefit to those involved in minor or heinous crimes and holders of public office involved in corruption or corrupt practices, as such it cannot be considered to be a legislation for achieving the object of national reconciliation’ was with reference to those who promulgated the NRO and did not attribute any motive to the late Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto.”
Published in The Express Tribune, December 9th, 2011.
The Supreme Court issued a detailed verdict on the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) on Thursday night, saying that the federation had failed to establish that it was aggrieved by the court’s decision against the controversial ordinance.
Following the detailed judgment, the government will face renewed pressure from the country’s highest court to reopen Swiss money laundering cases against President Asif Ali Zardari, who is currently hospitalised in Dubai for medical treatment.
On November 24, a 17-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, dismissed a review petition of the federation against the NRO and directed it to comply with its decision without any delay.
“Before parting with this judgment, we may like to observe that the Court was conscious of the fact that although neither the Parliament approved the NRO as an act nor defended the law and rather did not oppose revival of criminal cases, this petition for review was filed on behalf of the federation; that despite repeated queries of the Court, learned counsel did not elaborate as to how the federation was an ‘aggrieved person’ or disclose any other ‘sufficient cause’ to fall within the parameters of the law regulating the review jurisdiction,” said the detailed judgment.
It further addressed objections raised on every single paragraph of the NRO decision by the federation. The judgment also stated that it had given permission to former law minister Dr Babar Awan to represent the federation “so that if we find that a case for review is made, we will allow the application seeking permission to argue, which could only have been argued under the Supreme Court rules by the counsel who appeared for the federation in the main case.”
“The court in Para 178 of the judgment merely held that the communications addressed by the then attorney general were unauthorised and the federal government was directed to take steps to seek the revival of the request in that context. Neither during the hearing of the main case, learned counsel for the federal government placed on record any instructions of the federation in this context nor during the hearing of this review petition, any such material was laid before this court which could persuade us to hold that the said communication by the then attorney general was duly authorised to warrant its review,” the judgment said.
The court also clarified that it had not attributed any motive to former prime minister Benazir Bhutto saying, “Para 44 of the judgment under review merely makes a reference to late Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto’s book “Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West”. The observations made in Para 45 of the National Reconciliation Ordinance, 2007 are qualified by the expression ‘prima facie’ but the finding that the said ordinance ‘extended benefit to those involved in minor or heinous crimes and holders of public office involved in corruption or corrupt practices, as such it cannot be considered to be a legislation for achieving the object of national reconciliation’ was with reference to those who promulgated the NRO and did not attribute any motive to the late Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto.”
Published in The Express Tribune, December 9th, 2011.