PM likely to face same fate as Gilani, says Aitzaz
Aitzaz was Gilani’s lawyer in the contempt of court case in which he was convicted and disqualified on June 19 after failing to implement the NRO verdict the court had delivered in December 2009.
While addressing the media in Haripur, the PPP stalwart said that the 10 judges who disqualified Gilani would definitely uphold their previous verdict at every cost.
Similarly, renowned jurist and former law minister Senator SM Zafar told The Express Tribune on Sunday that there was a possibility the court would announce its decision instead of postponing the case any further.
The Supreme Court had issued a show-cause notice under Article 204 of the Constitution to Premier Ashraf over his failure to implement court orders of writing a letter to Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases against the president. He was directed to appear personally before the court on August 27 (today).
Procedure of hearing
While explaining the procedure of court hearings, SM Zafar said that the court would first question Prime Minister Ashraf about the implementation of its orders.
On receiving his reply, the court will then frame charges against the prime minister, seeing that the order has not been implemented.
Following that, the premier’s legal representative will present his arguments, Zafar explained.
Although the former law minister did not rule out the possibility of a postponement, he said, “the entire process can end in one day and the court can announce its decision.”
Appearing before the court
Aitzaz appeared to be uncertain whether the prime minister would appear before the Supreme Court today to accept the judgment on writing a letter to Swiss authorities.
“He could personally appear before the apex court, or get represented by Attorney General, or could seek time from the court,” he said. The senator added, however, that he was certain about one thing: until Asif Ali Zardai is the president, he could not be tried in any court of law.
“There is not a single precedent in the world’s history in which a sitting president was tried by a court of law during the last 500 years,” he said.
However, he brushed aside the notion that he was completely opposed to the Swiss letter, saying that the timing was not appropriate under the law.
On the other hand, Zafar said the prime minister, in his opinion, would not skip the proceedings and appear before the court.
“It is a contempt matter and it has become a norm that prime ministers do appear before the court as was done by Gilani and Nawaz Sharif,” he said.
In case the premier does not appear before the court, however, Zafar said the government’s lawyer would provide reasons for his absence, which “the court will take as defiance”.
Pending review petition
When asked whether the pending review petition of the government against the Supreme Court’s order asking the premier to implement the NRO judgment would have any impact on the case, Zafar said “…legally there is no hitch and court can proceed irrespective of the fact that a review petition connected to the matter is pending before it.”
He added that the government may buy time on the pretext of its pending review petition. “The government may ask the court to postpone the hearing till decision of its review petition,” he said.
However, Zafar said there were limited chances of the court giving the government more time, “since the matter is lingering for years and the court had given enough time to the former premier”.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 27th, 2012.
COMMENTS (17)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Jibran: Neither Nixon nor Clinton were impeached. Nixon resigned under pressure and Clinton withheld the tide against him and survived the full term of the Presidency. None of these Presidents had any corruption charges against them and for that reason the judiciary did not go after them. The President of USA is the head of the State and so is the President of Pakistan, if either does anything illegal they can be tried. The legal gurus raise the issue that the "head of the States cannot be tried" so are wrong on this point as they can be removed from office.
Why CJ and his terror team had given time this time . Why the same treatement was not with Gilani . THE ORDER IS SELF CONTRADICTORY that prooves that the court is biased .
“There is not a single precedent in the world’s history in which a sitting president was tried by a court of law during the last 500 years,” he said.
Reference; Liberia “A United Nations-backed court convicted Liberian president Charles Taylor of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the first time a head of state has been found guilty by an international tribunal since the Nazi trials at Nuremberg.”
The issue ,as the world no doubt sees it is---how law abiding is the government? to keep appointing a new pm , rather than comply with the order and directions of the court is childish, and in the big picture 'the whole nation' is seen, no doubt, by the world, as an immature nation for they[the citizens] are tolerating and accepting persons to rule the nation who do not have the fog-est notion of governance. not only that, this mockery of the 'rule of law' now adapted by the sitting government is surely pushing the country to certain anarchy.
It is a "face off" situation!!!
As stated by learned readers US Presidents had undergone impeachment process and were not tried in any crminal cases. Let Zardari be excercised the same by the Parliament and the the biased Judiciert determined to dislodge the sitting Government and derailed democratic process on beheast of some unseen forces lodging the compaign against the country.
Mr. Barrister you are losing your credibility day by day. Raja rental may survive due to not hiring your services!
It is amazing what wonders a senate seat could do. Never realized it is so precious.
@Khalq e Khuda: You may be a rich person and stealing US$ 60 million may not be a big deal for you, but it is a lot of money for the poor people of Pakistan. No matter what, this money is will be returned to where it was stolen from. So, instead of bashing judiciary, request your beloved leader to return it by himself without further wasting nation's time.
@Burhan Ahmed: @Shahid Khalid: First, the US President is the counterpart of the Pakistani Prime Minister and not the President. Second, both US presidents were impeached and not sent out by a judicial order.
The legal gurus of this country always quote that there is no precedence of any President anywhere in the world being tried in a court of law. They neglect to mention that impeachment proceeding against President Nixon lead to his resignation. Also President Clinton was brought to task by the Congress and Senate and had to answer for lying under oath, though Clinton narrow escaped being impeached. If a country like USA holds its leaders accountable for wrong-doings, why is Pakistan hiding its leaders from opening any possible corruption charges and prefer to replace Prime Ministers on contempt charges. We wanted an independent judiciary, we got one, and now we have created an untamed monster, for good or for bad.
Has Zardari even asked for immunity?
CJ Iftikhar Ch. and his comrades don't give a damn about the 1973 constitution, which gives immunity to a sitting president. Their loyalty is not to the 1973 constitution, but to Musharraf's PCO, on which they took the oath of allegiance.
Correction, the sentence should read: "WHILE Asif Ali Zardai is the president, he could not be tried in any court of law."
Zardari is not claiming his innocence. His attorney is just stating that during the last 500 years not a single sitting president was tried by a court of law.Hopefully A. Zardari will be the next sitting president to be tried for corruption. Another feather in the cap of the country he represents.
You should spend less time talking and more time repenting for imposing such grossly political and vengeful judges upon our heads Mr Aitzaz Ahsan.