Dual office: President did not commit contempt of court, counsel tells LHC

Federation's counsel says court had only expressed expectations, had not directly ordered president to leave office.

LAHORE: The federation's counsel, defending President Asif Ali Zardari’s dual office in a contempt of court petition, told the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Wednesday that while the president was not above the law, but he was only answerable to the Parliament.

Counsel Wasim Sajjad objected to the maintainability of the petition and argued that the filing a contempt petition was not an appropriate manner to seek a judicial order against the president.

He reiterated his arguments that the president did not violate any order passed by the court and said that a full bench of the LHC, which passed judgment on May 12, 2011 in the main petition against president’s dual office, had only expressed its expectations. The president was not directly asked to relinquish the political office, he added.

During the hearing, Advocate Sajjad kept trying to convince the judges that violation of a “declaration” or “expectation” expressed by the court did not amount to contempt of court. He said that the president neither committed any contempt of court nor attempted to scandalise the court.

The counsel, however, failed to satisfy the judges when he was asked about an appropriate mode of seeking relief against the president instead of filing a contempt of court petition.

LHC Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that period of one and a half years had lapsed but the court's order has not yet been complied with so far.

Advocate Sajjad insisted that the court had not issued a direct order to the president, therefore, he was not bound to fulfil the expectation of the court.

Justice Bandial asked the counsel, “Do you want us to direct the president like an ordinary functionary of government?”

The judge added that the court has exercised maximum restraint and showed courtesy the lofty office of the president deserved and issued a clear declaration against political activities of the president. The chief justice further asked the counsel, “You wanted that the court should have directly asked the president to shun the political office?”

“If the expectation of the court is not fulfilled then what course of procedure should be followed?” Justice Ahsan posed a question to the federation’s counsel.

Advocate Sajjad argued that there must be a direct order along with a declaration issued by the court. He further argued that the president was not holding any office prohibited under Article 43 of the Constitution. The office being held by the president was not a profitable one, he added.

He added that President Zardari neither violated any law nor misused his highest office in any manner. The office of the president enjoyed a special status being symbol of the state and face of the country out of Pakistan, he said.

Advocate Sajjad argued that Article 242 (2) of the Constitution prohibited any criminal proceedings against the president till he was in his office.

He also objected to the territorial jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court saying the court could not pass any restraining order to the extent of the premises of President House as it fell in the jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court.

Justice Bandial, however, rejected this argument and observed that the president was not confined to the President House only. Being a symbol of the state, he was everywhere in the country, the chief justice added.

During the course of the hearing, almost all the judges told the counsel to come up with fresh arguments. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah even observed that the arguments of the counsel were going around in circles.

The bench adjourned further hearing till November 21 and asked the federation’s counsel to advance arguments on the constitutional immunity enjoyed by the president.