ISLAMABAD: The federation on Tuesday did not file the expected miscellaneous application against the rejection of its previous petition by the Supreme Court seeking adjournment of the case.
The petition, a copy of which was obtained by The Express Tribune, will, however, be filed today.
The apex court had, on Monday, turned down the federation’s request seeking adjournment of the NRO review case after the appointment of Kamal Azfar as adviser to the prime minister; but the federation insisted that the court revisit its verdict.
The review application, however, could not be filed on Tuesday because, according to Attorney General Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, the bank closed before the prescribed fee could be deposited.
Now, the government will move to the larger bench with its new petition.
Laced with emotive appeals, the petition highlights some incidents of the past whereby, according to the government, Pakistan Peoples Party’s founder Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his daughter Benazir Bhutto were both denied justice as they were not allowed to engage counsels of their choice by the courts.
The government will ask the 17-member bench to meet the “dictates of justice” by allowing it (government) to engage another counsel in place of Kamal Azfar. Azfar has to plead the NRO review and compliance case on behalf of the federation today.
Following is the original text of three-page plea:
“1. That vide order dated 27.9.2010 this Hon’ble Court was pleased to order the hearing of C.R.P. No.129/2010 to commence from 13.10.2010. The Review Petition is accordingly fixed for hearing on 13.10.2010 before a bench comprising 17 Hon’ble Judges of this August Court.
“2. That the Review Petition was to be argued by Barrister Kamal Azfar, Advocate of this Court who had represented the Federation of Pakistan in the main Constitution Petition No.76/2010. The said learned Advocate was appointed as an Advisor to the Prime Minister vide notification dated 6.10.2010 read with notification dated 10.10.2010. The application (C.M.A. No.2922/2010) was filed by the Federation through AOR which was legitimately expected to be heard by the learned Bench constituted for hearing Review Petition.
“3. That the matter was however listed before a three Member Bench headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice on 11.10.2010. In pursuance of a notice issued by Hon’ble Court the AOR appeared and further in compliance with the direction of the Court produced the notifications. The said application (C.M.A.No.2922/2010) was dismissed after hearing the AOR for the Petitioner, the learned Counsel for the caveator and the Attorney General for Pakistan who had appeared on Court call, vide order dated 11.10.2010.
“4. That the said order dated 11.10.2010 is liable to be reviewed in terms of Order XXVI Rule 1 of the Supreme Court of Pakistan Rules 1980 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC inter alia on the following grounds:-
“a. The learned Bench that decided the application was not seized of the C.R.P. No.129/2010, in relation where to the C.M.A was filed. As submitted above the C.R.P. No.129/2010 was ordered to be heard and in fact listed for hearing on 13.10.2010 before the Bench of 17 Hon’ble Judges of this Court.
“b. The C.M.A was not motivated by any malafide as observed in the impugned order. The inability of the learned Counsel who had filed the Review Petition was pleaded and prayer was made for allowing the Petitioner to arrange its representation through another learned Counsel.
“c. That two former Hon’ble Prime Ministers of Pakistan did suffer irreparable loss on account interalia, of not having a fair chance of defending themselves though the counsel of their choice, through the said choice is a vested right.
“d. It is a matter of record that Shaheed Quaid-e-Awam Zulfikar Ali Bhutto could not have his representation through the globally known lawyer Ramsey Clark (Former Attorney General of USA) and another Prime Minister, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto was convicted by Ehtesab bench of the Lahore High Court in absentia debarring her from the participation in the national affairs through a tailor made disqualification.
“e. It is humbly submitted that it shall meet all dictates of justice if the prayer made for engaging another Counsel to argue the C.R.P. No.129/2010 be considered by the Hon’ble 17 Member Bench.
“f. The petitioner will remain unheard in case it is not permitted to be represented by a Counsel during the course of consideration / hearing of the Review Petition.
“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Review Petition be allowed and upon reconsideration the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be permitted to be represented by a Counsel in the course of hearing of the Review Petition (C.R.P.No.129/2010).
“Drawn and filed by
“(Raja Abdul Ghafoor),
“Advocate on Record”
Published in The Express Tribune, October 13th, 2010.