Dual office case: LHC offers president ‘another chance’ to obey orders
Govt’s counsel insists court’s orders were not prohibitory in nature.
LAHORE:
Hearing a contempt petition against the president, the Lahore High Court offered President Asif Ali Zardari “another chance” to obey its orders in a judgment over his holding dual offices.
A full bench of the LHC directed the government’s counsel to appear before it on October 31, the next date of hearing, after taking instructions from the president, in this regard.
Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial told the federation’s counsel that the court could give the president another chance to obey to the court’s orders. “We can give you time to seek instructions from the president to this effect,” Justice Bandial said.
Advocate Wasim Sajjad, however, submitted before the court on Wednesday that President Zardari did not hold any political office and also denied that a prohibitory order was issued by the court against the dual offices of the president – i.e. President of Pakistan and co-Chairman of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP).
Sajjad argued that the PPP was neither registered with the Election Commission of Pakistan nor allotted an election symbol. The Pakistan Peoples Party Parlimentarians (PPPP) is, on the other hand, a registered party of which Amin Faheem is the president and Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf the secretary. Therefore, he argued, any reservations over the president’s political activities were baseless.
The bench was hearing a petition seeking implementation of its order passed on May 12, 2011, and requesting contempt of court proceedings against the president.
Advocate Sajjad submitted that the LHC in its May 12 judgment had not passed any prohibitory order against the president and had rather expressed an ‘expectation’ that the president would give up his political activities. Justice Bandial, in response, remarked that the court had shown restraint and avoided passing a direct order keeping in view the sanctity of the office of the president. The court, however, had issued a declaration which was meant to be obeyed, he added.
A paragraph of the May 12 judgment states, “It is expected that the President of Pakistan would abide the foregoing declaration of law to disassociate himself from the political office at the earliest possible.”
Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah asked the counsel, “Do you think the expectation expressed by the court was merely casual remarks?”
Justice Shah further asked him why the federation had not challenged the May 12 judgment. Advocate Sajjad replied by saying there was no need to file an appeal since no order was passed against the president.
The counsel argued that the president had not committed contempt of court by virtue of the expectation of the court. He added that the matter regarding the president’s so-called unconstitutional activities should have been left for parliament to deal with.
Before concluding the hearing, Chief Justice Bandial made it clear to Advocate Sajjad that there should be no misconception about the restraint shown by the LHC. “We are showing restraint in taking suo motu notices and facing criticism but we have legal reasons for this,” he said.
The court adjourned the hearing till October 31.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 11th, 2012.
Hearing a contempt petition against the president, the Lahore High Court offered President Asif Ali Zardari “another chance” to obey its orders in a judgment over his holding dual offices.
A full bench of the LHC directed the government’s counsel to appear before it on October 31, the next date of hearing, after taking instructions from the president, in this regard.
Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial told the federation’s counsel that the court could give the president another chance to obey to the court’s orders. “We can give you time to seek instructions from the president to this effect,” Justice Bandial said.
Advocate Wasim Sajjad, however, submitted before the court on Wednesday that President Zardari did not hold any political office and also denied that a prohibitory order was issued by the court against the dual offices of the president – i.e. President of Pakistan and co-Chairman of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP).
Sajjad argued that the PPP was neither registered with the Election Commission of Pakistan nor allotted an election symbol. The Pakistan Peoples Party Parlimentarians (PPPP) is, on the other hand, a registered party of which Amin Faheem is the president and Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf the secretary. Therefore, he argued, any reservations over the president’s political activities were baseless.
The bench was hearing a petition seeking implementation of its order passed on May 12, 2011, and requesting contempt of court proceedings against the president.
Advocate Sajjad submitted that the LHC in its May 12 judgment had not passed any prohibitory order against the president and had rather expressed an ‘expectation’ that the president would give up his political activities. Justice Bandial, in response, remarked that the court had shown restraint and avoided passing a direct order keeping in view the sanctity of the office of the president. The court, however, had issued a declaration which was meant to be obeyed, he added.
A paragraph of the May 12 judgment states, “It is expected that the President of Pakistan would abide the foregoing declaration of law to disassociate himself from the political office at the earliest possible.”
Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah asked the counsel, “Do you think the expectation expressed by the court was merely casual remarks?”
Justice Shah further asked him why the federation had not challenged the May 12 judgment. Advocate Sajjad replied by saying there was no need to file an appeal since no order was passed against the president.
The counsel argued that the president had not committed contempt of court by virtue of the expectation of the court. He added that the matter regarding the president’s so-called unconstitutional activities should have been left for parliament to deal with.
Before concluding the hearing, Chief Justice Bandial made it clear to Advocate Sajjad that there should be no misconception about the restraint shown by the LHC. “We are showing restraint in taking suo motu notices and facing criticism but we have legal reasons for this,” he said.
The court adjourned the hearing till October 31.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 11th, 2012.