This refers to the April 14th news report seen by viewers across the country on national TV that an erstwhile darling of the media, champion of the rule of law and flag-bearer of professional integrity, Aitzaz Ahsan going furious with the media, for calling a 'spade, a spade' relative to the veracity of his statements in the Supreme Court during the hearing of a contempt case against his client, Prime Minister Gilani! Barrister Ahsan thinks that Pakistanis who regularly read newspapers and watch the TV channels, are some sort of morons, who cannot tell distinguish lies from the truth.
Aitzaz said that Prime Minister Gilani was advised by the last two Attorney Generals that as per the constitutional provisions, he was not obligated to write a letter to the Swiss authorities to reopen the money laundering cases against Zardari-Bhutto clan as directed by the apex court. Both the former AGs have denied Barrister Ahsan's assertion. Not only that but Babar Awan, the ex-law minister and Masood Chishti, the then-secretary ministry of law, backed off and excused themselves from testifying to this effect in the court of law, notwithstanding pressures from the presidency and the powerful contemnor.
Barrister Ahsan made another statement in the Supreme Court that only Asif Zardari was the "sole" accused in the Swiss bank money laundering case, conveniently forgetting that besides Zardari, there are 7 other individuals as co-accused in this case, as acknowledged by the apex court during the April 13 hearing of the case.
Barrister Ahsan, in his short interaction with the media on April 13, reasserted that he was "happy to be the legal counsel for PM Gilani in the contempt case and that he had no regrets about it." Obviously how could Barrister Ahsan have any regrets if the professional fee that has been given to him is a seat in the Senate.
The most irrelevant statement coming from him, pertains to submission and request for reopening of Asif Zardari's money laundering and wilful perjury, (presentation of medical reports relative to his physical condition and mental state to avoid personal appearance in a court of law), to a Swiss court. He posed a question to media persons and indirectly to the apex court as to "how the president could be subjected to a national humiliation and forced to bow his head to a magistrate in a Swiss court?" Does it mean that if a president has committed a serious cognisable crime, should be exempted and be condoned for his crime? It would be an excellent opportunity for Zardari to submit himself to the Swiss court of law to get himself honourably exonerated if he had not committed the crime.
It also sad to see the turning of court cases such as the NRO, NICL, Hajj scam, contempt, the Memogate, Abbottabad debacle, into sort of "soap operas", one adjournment is like the end of an episode, leading to the next episode, enacted endlessly without any resolution and decision.