Dual offices case: LHC rejects federation's plea to become respondent
LHC CJ rules federal govt can become a 'pro-forma party' and can raise objections on the maintainability of...
LAHORE:
A larger bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday turned down the federal government’s plea to become a necessary party in a contempt of court petition against President Asif Ali Zardari for not relinquishing his political office. However, the LHC allowed the government to become a proforma respondent in the petition.
The bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial observed that the government’s counsel will not be allowed to talk about the merits or demerits in the case against President Zardari however, the court would hear their submissions if counsel feels they are necessary.
Senior lawyer Wasim Sajjad, who was representing the federation, opposed the court’s decision but the chief justice did not entertain his argument.
The four-member bench resumed proceedings on the contempt of court petition taking up civil miscellaneous application filed by the federal government. They asked Advocate Sajjad to advance his arguments.
Court room no 1, where the case was being heard, was jam-packed as a large number of lawyers affiliated with the PPP attended the hearing.
The federation’s counsel tried to convince the court that it was necessary for the government to become a party in the contempt case as the President of Pakistan was a symbol of federation and a part of the parliament. He further argued that since the federation was made a party in the main petition against the president, it should be allowed to become a necessary party in contempt of court petition as well.
At this the chief justice mentioned that in the main petition against the President’s dual office a panel of federal government’s lawyers had boycotted the court’s proceedings.
After hearing initial submissions of the government’s counsel, the bench issued a notice to the petitioner to file a reply to the application.
Petitioner’s counsel Advocate AK Dogar received the notice at the same moment and expressed his willingness to oppose the application. The bench also allowed the counsel to advance their arguments.
Opposing the government’s plea, Advocate Dogar argued that the contempt of court petition was not filed against the office of the president but a person named Asif Ali Zardari. He further said that in a contempt matter only the guilty party was supposed to defend the charges leveled against them and no other person or party had the right to defend the charges or become party in the case. Dogar added that even the presence of the attorney general was not required in such a case.
Advocate Sajjad interrupted the petitioner’s counsel saying that if a writ petition could be filed against a private person (Zardari) then the federation could also be allowed to become party in the case. He further said that the results of the instant litigation will not affect Zardari only, they would have far-reaching implications on the whole country.
During the hearing, the chief justice Bandial read out a letter submitted by principal secretary to President Zardari wherein it was mentioned that the President will be represented in the case through Advocate Wasim Sajjad.
Sajjad failed to answer when CJ asked whether he was representing the president directly. Instead, he reiterated his earlier argument that he was representing the federation and the president was a symbol of the federation and part of the parliament.
The counsel also failed to give any satisfactory answer when the court inquired whether it should consider the letter from the principal secretary as a service of court’s notice on the respondent.
With the court’s permission, attorney general Irfan Qadir also made his submissions and urged the court to stop proceedings in the contempt matter. He argued that the same questions raised in the instant proceedings had been pending before the Supreme Court and short-orders had been issued by the apex court in that regard. Therefore, he argued that till detailed judgments of the apex court are released, the high court should halt its proceedings.
He further contended that political questions had been raised in an instant case rather than any constitutional or legal point. He added that the court should not show any haste in deciding the case and should wait for judgments of the Supreme Court.
Qadir said that the case will be considered an important case in the history of the sub-continent as it was against the head of a state.
“Filing of such cases amounts to scandalise the courts and waste their precious time,” the AGP contended.
Advocate Dogar countered the arguments of the attorney general and claimed that the government wanted to delay proceedings without any reason. He referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court and said that the apex court had already held proceedings in a contempt matter.
He further said that the respondent (president) was involved in continuous and willful defiance of court’s judgment.
“Article 248 (1) of the Constitution does not grant immunity in criminal proceedings,” said Dogar.
The courtroom also witnessed heated dialogues between Advocate Dogar and the Attorney General Irfan Qadir however, and the chief justice had to step in to calm the situation down.
Advocate Azhar Siddique, co-counsel of the petitioner, argued that the conviction of the former Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani was a clear example of a contempt of court case. He further said that the SC had ordered Gillani to write a letter to the Swiss government as he was the chief executive of Pakistan, later the court punished him being a person after he disobeyed the order.
“Gillani is now no more in the power but the office of the chief executive still exists,” Azhar explained his argument.
At this point, Advocate Sajjad said that if Gillani was not the prime minister, he would not have been convicted by the court. He also challenged the locus standi of the petitioner and said that not a single political party raised objection on the President for holding the political office but only a few lawyers from Punjab.
After hearing all parties, the bench took short recess. On resuming, the court announced to adjourn hearings till next Friday (September 21).
Justice Nasir Saeed Sheikh, Justice Sheikh Najamul Hassan and Justice Ijazul Ahsan were the other members of the larger bench. Fifth member of the bench, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, has been on leaves for the last two hearings of the case.
A larger bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday turned down the federal government’s plea to become a necessary party in a contempt of court petition against President Asif Ali Zardari for not relinquishing his political office. However, the LHC allowed the government to become a proforma respondent in the petition.
The bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial observed that the government’s counsel will not be allowed to talk about the merits or demerits in the case against President Zardari however, the court would hear their submissions if counsel feels they are necessary.
Senior lawyer Wasim Sajjad, who was representing the federation, opposed the court’s decision but the chief justice did not entertain his argument.
The four-member bench resumed proceedings on the contempt of court petition taking up civil miscellaneous application filed by the federal government. They asked Advocate Sajjad to advance his arguments.
Court room no 1, where the case was being heard, was jam-packed as a large number of lawyers affiliated with the PPP attended the hearing.
The federation’s counsel tried to convince the court that it was necessary for the government to become a party in the contempt case as the President of Pakistan was a symbol of federation and a part of the parliament. He further argued that since the federation was made a party in the main petition against the president, it should be allowed to become a necessary party in contempt of court petition as well.
At this the chief justice mentioned that in the main petition against the President’s dual office a panel of federal government’s lawyers had boycotted the court’s proceedings.
After hearing initial submissions of the government’s counsel, the bench issued a notice to the petitioner to file a reply to the application.
Petitioner’s counsel Advocate AK Dogar received the notice at the same moment and expressed his willingness to oppose the application. The bench also allowed the counsel to advance their arguments.
Opposing the government’s plea, Advocate Dogar argued that the contempt of court petition was not filed against the office of the president but a person named Asif Ali Zardari. He further said that in a contempt matter only the guilty party was supposed to defend the charges leveled against them and no other person or party had the right to defend the charges or become party in the case. Dogar added that even the presence of the attorney general was not required in such a case.
Advocate Sajjad interrupted the petitioner’s counsel saying that if a writ petition could be filed against a private person (Zardari) then the federation could also be allowed to become party in the case. He further said that the results of the instant litigation will not affect Zardari only, they would have far-reaching implications on the whole country.
During the hearing, the chief justice Bandial read out a letter submitted by principal secretary to President Zardari wherein it was mentioned that the President will be represented in the case through Advocate Wasim Sajjad.
Sajjad failed to answer when CJ asked whether he was representing the president directly. Instead, he reiterated his earlier argument that he was representing the federation and the president was a symbol of the federation and part of the parliament.
The counsel also failed to give any satisfactory answer when the court inquired whether it should consider the letter from the principal secretary as a service of court’s notice on the respondent.
With the court’s permission, attorney general Irfan Qadir also made his submissions and urged the court to stop proceedings in the contempt matter. He argued that the same questions raised in the instant proceedings had been pending before the Supreme Court and short-orders had been issued by the apex court in that regard. Therefore, he argued that till detailed judgments of the apex court are released, the high court should halt its proceedings.
He further contended that political questions had been raised in an instant case rather than any constitutional or legal point. He added that the court should not show any haste in deciding the case and should wait for judgments of the Supreme Court.
Qadir said that the case will be considered an important case in the history of the sub-continent as it was against the head of a state.
“Filing of such cases amounts to scandalise the courts and waste their precious time,” the AGP contended.
Advocate Dogar countered the arguments of the attorney general and claimed that the government wanted to delay proceedings without any reason. He referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court and said that the apex court had already held proceedings in a contempt matter.
He further said that the respondent (president) was involved in continuous and willful defiance of court’s judgment.
“Article 248 (1) of the Constitution does not grant immunity in criminal proceedings,” said Dogar.
The courtroom also witnessed heated dialogues between Advocate Dogar and the Attorney General Irfan Qadir however, and the chief justice had to step in to calm the situation down.
Advocate Azhar Siddique, co-counsel of the petitioner, argued that the conviction of the former Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani was a clear example of a contempt of court case. He further said that the SC had ordered Gillani to write a letter to the Swiss government as he was the chief executive of Pakistan, later the court punished him being a person after he disobeyed the order.
“Gillani is now no more in the power but the office of the chief executive still exists,” Azhar explained his argument.
At this point, Advocate Sajjad said that if Gillani was not the prime minister, he would not have been convicted by the court. He also challenged the locus standi of the petitioner and said that not a single political party raised objection on the President for holding the political office but only a few lawyers from Punjab.
After hearing all parties, the bench took short recess. On resuming, the court announced to adjourn hearings till next Friday (September 21).
Justice Nasir Saeed Sheikh, Justice Sheikh Najamul Hassan and Justice Ijazul Ahsan were the other members of the larger bench. Fifth member of the bench, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, has been on leaves for the last two hearings of the case.