The five-member Supreme Court (SC) bench constituted for hearing of National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case on January 10, delivered a six-option pack for the ultimate dispensation of the NRO case, lingering in the Supreme Court for the past two years. The "delinquent Zardari-Gilani duo" has been asked by the SC to pick an option of choice from the six options for the SC to consider for judicial dispensation for initiating a contempt case against the prime minister and the secretary law.
Judicial proceedings against Zardari, as being construed by the ignorant common folks, such as the undersigned, is contingent upon settling of the presidential immunity issue. Most of us, the common citizens, are not experts on law and judicial intricacies to go beyond their commonsense domain and as such, they cannot fathom the minds of the SC judges and judicial wisdom in matters such as, why six options have been offered to the alleged delinquents to choose any one. A common citizen is at a complete loss to understand the judicial wisdom in this regard as opposed to deliverance of a verdict? How can one describe this decision of the SC bench, which on the one hand, finds Prime Minister Gilani, "dishonest" and President Zardari a "violator" of the constitution, the chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB), a deliberate dodger of the law and the law secretary as an absconder from appearance in court on the day of the verdict and instead of indictment and ordering trial of the culprits, presents them with a slate of six options to pick one option out of the six? Most perplexing, indeed!
Is the decision a verdict, a mere recommendation, an observation or manifestation of supreme tolerance, or affording a short breathing respite to the delinquents, or pussyfooting to bite the bullet or pass the buck on to a larger bench instead of a full bench, to afford more time to the delinquents to manipulate the issue before the final decision? The decision, interim verdict or recommendation made by the bench can best be described as an "NRO a la carte menu" with six 'entree' to select and pick the most exquisite and palatable one, from the list!
The option six of the SC decision, baffles most. What do the honourable members of the bench mean by stating that "the court may exercise judicial restraint and leave the matter to the better judgement of the people of the country or their representatives in parliament to appropriately deal with the delinquents." In this regard and in the first place, if better judgement of the people had been applied, these delinquents would not have been elected. Secondly, common people are neither adequately qualified nor legal experts to deliver a judgement in a most critical issue. How can a parliament, comprising delinquents, with vested selfish interests, a large number of whom have fake degrees, can "appropriately" deal with the identified delinquent colleagues and brothers-in-arms? So, what does the word, "appropriately" specifically mean and what are the rules and judicial or otherwise parameters to "deal appropriately" with the culprits by an untrustworthy, subservient and self-serving parliament, dominated by the ruling party and its coalition partners, who are best described each one of them, as conglomerate of "rent-a-political party"? One wishes the SC had taken a firm decision instead of offering a set of six options, which increases the stress level and agony of the traumatised nation.