Out of the frying pan into the fire

The inevitable has happened - in that while seeking exoneration by the Supreme Court in the contempt of court case the much-ballyhooed personal appearance of Prime Minister Gilani before the court on Thursday, has triggered the possibility of the court now also deciding the question of President Zardari enjoyed immunity against the reopening of his alleged involvement in the Swiss money laundering case and the writing of a letter to this effect by the government of Pakistan to the Swiss authorities. This particular hearing was essentially about Gilani's perceived incurring contempt of court for his consistent refusal to write a letter to the Swiss authorities as directed by the court in the wake of its verdict that the NRO stood void ab initio, and all cases closed in the light of this notorious ordinance stood revived. Of course, the Justice Khosa-headed bench had hinted at the vulnerability of the presidential immunity in one of its Six Options. On the face of it, the prime minister presented himself before the court in the contempt case and in part he did explain what stops him from writing the letter. But that was not all, as he, on his own, and his lawyer, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, clearly conveyed that they were not there to surrender before the court and seek its mercy and forgiveness, as is invariably always the case. They said they didn't believe that the prime minister had committed any contempt of the court by refusing to write the called-for letter to the Swiss authorities. With presidential immunity now at the centre stage, the Supreme Court will now give its interpretation of Article 248 of the Constitution, which Prime Minister Gilani says, stops him from writing the letter. And, should that interpretation be at variance with the government's, it would tend to spell wider consequences, at home by reopening other cases against the president and abroad by impinging upon the international law and jurisprudence that deal with money laundering cases. Aitzaz Ahsan's repeated assertion that the government has great respect for the judiciary, will face the test sooner than later in case the court decides that Article 248 doesn't grant the claimed immunity to the president. What if the court refuses to concede immunity to President Zardari, asked the presiding judge, Justice Nasirul Mulk. Will the government then write the letter, asked Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmani. Whether the prime minister and his attorney were prepared to be asked these questions; one would say probably not. That they would be able to prepare in the next two weeks that the court has given them, is anybody's guess. Simply said, all that the government achieved today was in line with the adage: out of the frying pan into the fire. And no less embarrassing, if not frustrating for Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, was what happened outside the courtroom. The same very darling of the legal fraternity who led the historic movement for judges' restoration was shamelessly booed and heckled by his colleagues right in the precincts of the Supreme Court. Of course, Aitzaz Ahsan has every right to take a position in a particular case against his known public position, and he was absolutely right in defending Prime Minister Gilani's position of denial on the question of writing the letter. But here the situation has an added dimension and that is, this case is clearly a political issue and rightly attracts comments embedded in people's perceptions. In the days and weeks to come, it would remain an essential part of public discourse as to what made him change his initial position, situated as it was on high moral ground. For too long he was of the opinion that nobody how so high and mighty in status, can refuse to comply with an order of the Supreme Court. Even as late as early this month, he was supportive of the court's position that Prime Minister Gilani should write a letter to the Swiss authorities. But no more; what happened? Copyright Business Recorder, 2012