Contempt petition: LHC seeks argument on president’s immunity
Shift focuses on Article 248(2) which provides cover to president.
LAHORE:
The Lahore High Court (LHC) went back to the basics during the hearing of a contempt petition against President Asif Ali Zardari on Thursday, deciding to focus on whether he enjoyed immunity under the constitution or not.
A full bench of the LHC, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, was hearing a contempt of court petition against President Zardari for holding a political office and indulging in political activities in violation of the court’s May 12, 2011, order.
The court directed the petitioner’s counsel, Advocated AK Dogar, to argue whether Article 248(2) of the Constitution posed a ban on entertaining a contempt petition against the president for not relinquishing his political office in light of a judgment passed by the court last year.
During Thursday’s proceedings, Advocate Wasim Sajjad, the federation’s counsel, concluded his arguments over the maintainability of the contempt petition. However, as the bench resumed proceedings, Advocate Sajjad struggled to get the court’s permission to continue his arguments on the maintainability issue, as he has already started arguments on the constitutional immunity enjoyed by president during the last hearing.
Advocate Dogar stated that the question of the maintainability had been decided upon in an order issued by the bench on October 10, 2012.
Advocate Sajjad, however, insisted that no order was passed against the president but, instead, the judgment merely “expressed” the opinion that the president should maintain impartially from any partisan political interest. This, he said, did not amount to an order or qualified as direction.
Referring to judgments of the Supreme Court, Advocate Sajjad said that an obligation/order must be expressed clearly and directly to parties involved in a case. “If the court issues any direct order then we will defend it,” he said.
Advocate Dogar, picking up on the reference, argued that the Supreme Court had already ruled that nobody was above the law and anyone could be tried under Article 204 of the constitution for committing contempt of court.
He further said that the Supreme Court had declared that Article 248(1) of the Constitution was in clear violation of Article 25 (Equality of citizens). At this Justice Bandial pointed out that president and governors enjoyed immunity under Article 248(2) and ambit of both clauses was different.
The bench adjourned the hearing till Friday (today).
Advocate Sajjad expressed his unavailability to attend Friday’s hearing; however, the chief justice observed that the court had already heard the federation’s arguments and his presence was no longer required.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 7th, 2012.
The Lahore High Court (LHC) went back to the basics during the hearing of a contempt petition against President Asif Ali Zardari on Thursday, deciding to focus on whether he enjoyed immunity under the constitution or not.
A full bench of the LHC, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, was hearing a contempt of court petition against President Zardari for holding a political office and indulging in political activities in violation of the court’s May 12, 2011, order.
The court directed the petitioner’s counsel, Advocated AK Dogar, to argue whether Article 248(2) of the Constitution posed a ban on entertaining a contempt petition against the president for not relinquishing his political office in light of a judgment passed by the court last year.
During Thursday’s proceedings, Advocate Wasim Sajjad, the federation’s counsel, concluded his arguments over the maintainability of the contempt petition. However, as the bench resumed proceedings, Advocate Sajjad struggled to get the court’s permission to continue his arguments on the maintainability issue, as he has already started arguments on the constitutional immunity enjoyed by president during the last hearing.
Advocate Dogar stated that the question of the maintainability had been decided upon in an order issued by the bench on October 10, 2012.
Advocate Sajjad, however, insisted that no order was passed against the president but, instead, the judgment merely “expressed” the opinion that the president should maintain impartially from any partisan political interest. This, he said, did not amount to an order or qualified as direction.
Referring to judgments of the Supreme Court, Advocate Sajjad said that an obligation/order must be expressed clearly and directly to parties involved in a case. “If the court issues any direct order then we will defend it,” he said.
Advocate Dogar, picking up on the reference, argued that the Supreme Court had already ruled that nobody was above the law and anyone could be tried under Article 204 of the constitution for committing contempt of court.
He further said that the Supreme Court had declared that Article 248(1) of the Constitution was in clear violation of Article 25 (Equality of citizens). At this Justice Bandial pointed out that president and governors enjoyed immunity under Article 248(2) and ambit of both clauses was different.
The bench adjourned the hearing till Friday (today).
Advocate Sajjad expressed his unavailability to attend Friday’s hearing; however, the chief justice observed that the court had already heard the federation’s arguments and his presence was no longer required.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 7th, 2012.