ISLAMABAD: 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.
COMMENTS (18)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Mirza: US cannot be compared to our conditions.Nations like US are much ahead as far as civilization is concerned. If any country's comparison can be drawn with Pak......this may be India or Bangladesh.
Thank you sir. Not just possible but it has happened Gore won more votes and lost the elections to Bush, because the US president is not elected on one man one vote principle. In fact it is state by state and the winner takes it all from that state. Here is a list of the US presidents who have won the elections despite losing majority of votes. In addition once elected whether directly or indirectly they have constitutional immunity against prosecution both domestic and under International law. The argument that Pakistan is a lawless country so no problem in breaking the constitution is bogus at best. Pakistani constitution clearly states that no new or existing case can be restarted against a sitting president. Those who want the elected govt to follow the SC dictates, are suggesting breaking the constitution because they do not like this particular president. Somebody would not like the next and the process of lawlessness would continue. Yet they would complaint that there is no rule of law in Pakistan. George W. Bush, Benjamin Harrison, and Rutherford B. Hayes were all elected with less popular votes than their opponents.
@Umar: Even that is not true. It is not a direct election. Each state sends its delegates, which elects the president. It is possible that the total number of votes bagged by the winner is less than that by the loser.
psyhco mirza no one is above law acording to islam , dont tell us about some criminal nixon.
@ Mirza, nice try, to defend the indefensible Spiro Agnew was about to be prosecuted but he resigned as being the VP of the US, Ford came in because of Agnew. Let me refresh your assertions that President and VP could not be prosecuted for willful criminal acts, Nixon knew that he was about to be prosecuted and even after his resignation he was pardoned by Ford. The US congress did pass the health care bill and CJ Roberts went with the majority on that issue, the support for the bill was about the same 47/47 in the US population, you are wrong by assuming that US Supreme Court is biased and supports the right wing element with impunity, these judges could be impeached if they went out of bound, the people will clamor for their impeachment. The US Supreme Court will strike down any law passed by the congress with malice and Pakistan Supreme Court should do too. Look it up what happened to Israeli President recently. NO BODY IS ABOVE THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION EXCEPT IN PAKISTAN WHERE IF YOU HAVE THE WEALTH REGARDLESS HOW YOU GOT IT, YOU COULD GET AWAY WITH MURDER, MUSH DID.The contempt law was passed in Pakistan by a rubber stamped parliament for protecting few corrupt in the government and it is not in the interest of the land, the Supreme Court must strike it down and those who want to amass wealth by ill gotten ways should be brought to justice regardless of their status.
It is a shame that we elect these people and later on they think they are special and need special laws that make them immune to the court of law. What kind of a primitive jungle are we living in? Where the top 9,10 people are immune to any questioning.
Is this what this country was made for? It is a shame that people still forget and hand another pair of fresh shoes to the corrupt politicians so that they can beat the awaam with them again (I'm referring to the multan 'victory' of the corrupt ex-pm and his corrupt sons). No one's going to come from outside and change this nation's state if these people keep selecting the same family of corrupt people everytime.
Loadshedding is on the rise again since Raja Rental's honey-moon period is over and now they'll once more provide money for FUEL only after a week or so. This way, they provide money for 1 week, then let loadsheeding rise for another 2 weeks (and save on fuel money, that'll go to some swiss banks), then provide for FUEL of power plants again for a week. Repeat.
This way, they're neither letting the people die, nor letting them live.
@Mirza: Immunity is only for office of the president and is not for cases which are pending in courts before his election as a president. Besides, immunity law can be valid for countries where there is rule of law and not in countries like ours where the system is run on feudalism, if we give these politicians immunity then we will never will be able to get rid of corruption. Do you really think our parliament where majority of the members are his servants in PPP will ever impeach him? someone has to chip in and stop this and implement the law, be it in the way the current SC has adopted.
Instead of whining about these laws and saying that they are against Islam or the constitution, we should vote in the upcoming election genuinely for our country. Lets take revenge from these politicians in a democratic manner.
@Mirza
Is this what you call democracy? Do you really believe that Zardari doesn't laugh at mindless fools and apologetic hypocrites who support and defend him? Do you still think this country is going to stand and develop with current politicians? Are you from Mars?
@Mirza,
In the US the president is directly elected by the people, does anyone thing that Zardari would stand even half a chance getting elected the American way, I definitely don't think so.
On what grounds do these new petitions get an early hearing while people whose cases are pending for years still await their turn before a judge? Clearly personal power trumps imparting justice for Pakistan's judiciary.
This is not democracy but democrazy.Poor people,poor leader and poor future.God bless us!
@Aqil: Sir the constitution is made and amended by the parliament only and not changed and brought back for one person. The constitution is not made by Zardari or for Zardari. People come and go but like a sacred holy book the constitution remains. We may not agree but would have to respect the constitution and electoral choice till the next elections. In the US Bust was the worst president. However, nobody rushed to do anything against him and waited for four years. Unfortunately he won again but people were sure he would be gone after a total of 8 years and his is history now. We have to learn and accept our opponents and verdict of masses. This is hard but the other options are more violent and worse. "Democracy is the worst form of govt except all the others" Regards, Mirza
@Saleem: In most civilized and democratic countries the head of the state is provided immunity by their constitution and International laws. This is to give the head a chance to govern without fear and distraction from any court and enemies who might try to undo the election results. In the US only a few weeks ago a conservative CJ of US SC has made a historic decision which otherwise was 4:4. He said later that if a decision is close the judge has to side with the elected congress and not against its verdict. Justice Roberts is no friend of Obama on the other had he is a conservative rightwing judge but when it came to people's choice he could not go against the elected congress and president. In the US the SC cannot try sitting president or even a person working in his or VP's office because they claim presidential privileges. There is nothing between the elected reps and governance from the courts at all. The only legal way is to censure an elected rep or impeach not through a court but only elected congress (House and Senate both have to agree) has the right to do that. More recently the Attorney General of USA has gone through this humiliating process before the House. No role for any court at all in the governance. Even after Nixon committed crimes he was not pursued by any court because after he resigned his VP who had taken over (Ford) had pardoned him using presidential powers. Not only that each of the presidents gives pardon to even spies and friends during and before they leave office by hundreds. Regards, Mirza
@Saleem: Correct! I would like the immunity of the President and Prime Minister to be removed as well for the time beeing. After we have learned that a representative must resign if there are doubts about his personality, we can restore the immunity law again. Simple: NO educated & credible leaders = NO immunity
Law makers made constitution to protect themselves. For the people they gave only slogans such as Roti, Kapra aur Makan (mang raha hai her siasatdan)
The caption should say "will start" not "would start," since the word "would" should be used in conditional sentences.
Grammar Nazi over and out.
How can an elected representative be higher than those who elect them? Once elected, does that pushes a representative above the law, or in other words provide him/her blanket immunity for whatever they do? It is a strange concept which is prevalent in corrupt countries of the world to protect their corrupt rulers. If elected representatives do their job honestly then they will not need “immunity”.