Appearing before the Supreme Court in a contempt of court case against premier Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani Wednesday - his counsel Aitzaz Ahsan reiterated that Gilani never defied the court orders, but he cannot write a letter to Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.
At the outset of the hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) apprised the bench that he had completed entire witnesses and evidence in the instant case and also submitted a reply of the Prime Minister in response to court's earlier order of March 8, 2012. Ahsan contended that the AGP should be presented in court as a witness instead of a prosecutor, adding that four people were directed to send summaries to the premier in the matter, but his client's response was misconstrued. He argued that it was only the Prime Minister who was held responsible for contempt of court whereas both the former AGP and law secretary had advised Gilani against writing a letter to Swiss authorities.
Ahsan informed the bench: 1"Neither I am praying for a review of the court order, nor presuming it as incorrect, but pointing out that being head of the State Asif Ali Zardari enjoys presidential immunity under international law". Ahsan contended that his client never stated that he would not follow the apex court's orders, adding that the President enjoyed immunity in 198 countries under Article 248 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Aitzaz argued that the bench could not proceed on the basis of assumptions, as it was a criminal trial and decisions should be made on the basis of evidence submitted before the court instead of media reports. After the break, Aitzaz Ahsan expressed reservations over the judges hearing the case alleging that the members of the bench have already made up their minds against the incumbent Prime Minister. According to Asan, the bench cannot hear the case.
He added that the bench had issued a show cause notice to the premier and gave a ruling against him before the conclusion of the hearing. Without passing any judgement on the reservations of Ahsan, the bench observed that the judges had not made up their minds.
Justice Nasirul Mulk observed that Ahsan should have expressed no-confidence in the bench earlier. The counsel replied that he had the right to do so at any moment, adding that a new bench should be constituted to hear the case and that Article 10-A should be followed.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa remarked that everyone would demand that the bench that had issued a notice was not competent to conduct the trial. Justice Gulzar Ahmed said it meant no court of the country that had framed a charge-sheet was authorised to hear the case.
Ahsan termed 'six options' given by the bench in the case on January harsh, saying it appeared that the judges had already decided to punish the premier. He further contended that if the accused deserved to be hanged on the basis of evidence and proof, he should be hanged. If he's not hanged, he should be declared innocent. According to him, to err is human and that making mistake was human the premier is also a human being. Justice Nasirul Mulk remarked that not a slightest deviation from the law would be shown in the matter in hand.
The seven-member bench comprising Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Muhammad Ather Saeed decided to hear the case on a daily basis. The hearing was adjourned till March 22 (today).
Comments
Comments are closed.