Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

I understand the difference pasha sb between being a common man and a lawyer but why must he go on media and contradict his previous statements? Just be a lawyer in courts and avoid media while you are on this case.

22

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

Suddenly so much hatred against Chaudhry IA because he is loyal to the party. A fewdays ago same people were trumpetting band baja for him, the most honest and competant person soon joining loti PTI.

koi batlaao ke hum batlain kya:)

23

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

^^ I do think Aitzaz is a decent person but it's quite difficult to think about country before yourself and he is obviously a lot more loyal to the party rather than country (Just like a some of our fellow guppies).

24

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

Do you know any decent person >
I knew only three decent persons but all are from Baluchistan .
Achakzai, Khan of Qalat and Mangle .

25

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan’s U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

He may win the case for the government using legal loop holes and on the pretext of immunity.. but surely Aitezaz has lost his personal case in the eyes of the public by taking a huge U turn on his previously stated position. Aitezaz is one person whom nation considers a hero, and expect a more upright stance from him. People are disappointed to see their hero faltering like this:

When heroes falter

Babar Sattar
Saturday, January 21, 2012
The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.

“Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes,” Walt Whitman had famously stated to emphasise that consistency is overrated. Whitman was right. Imagine someone consistently taking a position that is flawed. The consciousness of a human being naturally evolves overtime. And it would defy logic if one were to refuse to reconsider one’s position in view of changed realities or evolved understanding of such realities. Thus, while principles can’t change, the acceptable standards that determine whether or not principles and ethics have been upheld can evolve.

But can principles, ethics and morals degenerate as well? Is there a link between the decline in the shared morality of a society and its own decay? These questions are relevant because the Supreme Court proceedings in the contempt case against the prime minister have instigated a debate about two seemingly different but linked questions that involve law and ethics.

The first relates to the meaning, desirability and wisdom of Article 248 of the Constitution and whether the president of a country should be above the law and enjoy blanket immunity against criminal acts and judicial proceedings. And the second is about the role and responsibility of a lawyer and whether he ought to advance an argument on behalf of a client that he might disagree with personally.

Let’s start with the second question first which has been provoked by Aitzaz Ahsan’s decision to represent Prime Minister Gilani in the contempt matter.** But this discussion must start with a confession. His legal acumen, intellectual prowess, charisma, oration skills, positions on crucial constitutional, political and social issues, together with his towering role in the rule of law movement made Mr Ahsan a hero for me and many others in the legal fraternity. During the Musharraf rule, he refused to serve on a constitutional reform committee along with Sharifuddin Pirzada. And in turning down the request he explained that Mr Pirzada served dictators without qualms, stood on the wrong side of principles and popularised an ethic of success which was devoid of morality and thus abhorrent.**

These attributes set Aitzaz Ahsan apart from the herd of pygmies in the lawyers’ community. In this backdrop the position he took in the Supreme Court on Thursday was distressing. Previously Mr Ahsan had publicly stated that writing a letter to the Swiss authorities was not disagreeable and that the NRO ruling would have to be complied with. After accepting the prime minister’s brief in the contempt matter he has now asserted before the court that the question of the prime minister’s liability for contempt doesn’t arise as (i) the prime minister was of the bona fide belief that the president enjoyed absolute immunity in criminal matters and Article 248 prohibited him from writing a letter to Swiss authorities, and (ii) the letter that Supreme Court had ordered the federal government to write while deciding the NRO case cannot be written so long as Asif Zardari is president.

More painful has been Aitzaz Ahsan’s insistence that there is no flip-flop here. If Mr Ahsan now believes that Article 248 prohibits the prime minister from writing any letter to the Swiss authorities that can possibly have the effect of re-opening money-laundering cases against President Zardari, how could he previously hold the view that there is no harm in writing such an unconstitutional letter? Lawyers are entitled to and do change their positions on points of law. If Mr Ahsan has changed his position would it not be better to say so?

What is it that lawyers do for a living? Are they wizards commissioned to save and promote the interests of their clients at all costs? Or do they owe a larger duty to dispensation of justice based on the truth?** What if during a murder trial a lawyer discovers as a matter of fact that his client actually committed the murder? With his conscience encumbered, would it be ethical for him to continue to proclaim his client’s innocence in a court of law?**

In steadfastly standing on the right side of history and principles, Aitzaz Ahsan accumulated considerable moral capital over the years.** It is agonising to see him fritter it away trying to defend a fib weaved together by the Zardari-Gilani duo. The prime minister has now admitted in the Supreme Court that he did not comply with the NRO order. He says he truthfully believes the Constitution prevents him from doing so. How will Mr Ahsan prove the prime minister’s bona fides? Is it not PPP’s publicly stated position that the party will not write a letter to the Swiss authorities for it is tantamount to “trying BB’s grave”? Have the PPP leaders not repeatedly asserted that the party has been a victim of Pakistan’s judiciary and they will not submit to the edicts of a court that dispenses selective justice?**

If the prime minister was really confused about his obligations under the Constitution in view of Article 248, what prevented him from clarifying the same during the NRO review proceedings? Or even during the NRO implementation proceedings all the way through January 16th when the court had specifically invited any interested party to address the court on the issue of presidential immunity?

More importantly, in what legal capacity did the prime minister elect to second-guess the constitutionality of an explicit instruction included in a binding order of the Supreme Court that had attained finality? Can a citizen or a public office holder independently contrive an interpretation of the Constitution that seems to contradict the order of the highest court of the land and then decide to follow his own interpretation as opposed to the judicial verdict?

Are we to assume that Article 248 was simply not in the contemplation of all 17 judges of the Supreme Court who considered the NRO issue at length, twice? By using Article 248 as a defence against the contempt charges, the prime minister seems to have steered the court proceedings in a direction where the final order of the court could produce direct consequences for President Zardari not just in relation to Swiss proceedings but also in Pakistan.

The court could take the narrower approach of interpreting Article 248 to determine whether or not it prevents the prime minister from writing the letter in compliance with the NRO ruling.** In the event that the court finds that the prime minister’s argument carries weight and Article 248 doesn’t allow writing a letter to the Swiss authorities, can seven judges partially suspend an order passed by a 17-member bench? Does the present bench – assembled to implement the NRO ruling – have the authority to indirectly review an order that has attained finality?**

Alternatively the Supreme Court could take a holistic view of Article 248 and elaborate the entire scope of presidential immunity and whether or not it is subject to any limitations. Should the president of a country be above the law? Should he have absolute immunity against criminal acts and proceedings? Should he go scott-free if he kills someone while being president? There is nothing to gainsay that that if we were to write our Constitution in 2012, injecting in it absolute immunity clauses such as Article 248(2) and (3) or pardon clauses such as Article 45 would be undesirable, as these are holdouts from times when men ruled and not the law.

Notwithstanding the lack of wisdom or desirability of the immunity clause, a literal interpretation of Article 248 seems to suggest that presidential immunity is unconditional. One would like parliament and not the court to exclude these provisions from our Constitution.** But Charles Evans Hughes wasn’t wrong back in 1907 when he retorted that, “we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”**

Email: [email protected]

26

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

There is different of opinion every where . You like only which make you happy .

27

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan’s U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

Can you explain where he was going from which he made a u-turn? As far I know he never ever left PPP and always said that that he was part and parcel of PPP and none can separate them. However many here predicting that he was going to join loti pti, or even NS was keen to have him in his party. Non happened therefore all this dismay and disappointments.

28

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity


Being blind supporter it will be hard for people to actually learn why people are opposing Aitzaz, even if question is answered they would still compare it with wishes of people for him to join PTI... really saddening.

29

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

No disrespect Mr Pasha but i don't take people like you serious at all.

30

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

It's actually funny when the same people blame others for being blind supporters. Just because grand dad said that Bhutto was a GREAT leader, i will keep worshipping PPP even if Bilawal's English girl friend becomes party's leader one day.

31

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan’s U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

http://thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=89064&Cat=2#.Tx0lgn2ps-w[FONT=Georgia, ‘Times New Roman’, Times, serif]Aitzaz Ahsan once again proves his critics wrong
](The News International: Latest News Breaking, World, Entertainment, Royal News)
Umar Cheema
Monday, January 23, 2012

ISLAMABAD: Although Aitzaz Ahsan has become the favourite punching bag of TV anchors and analysts who accuse him of flip-flopping on the question of writing a letter to the Swiss authorities, a letter he sent to his client, Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani, tells a different story.

Without budging an inch from his stated position that a letter should have been written to the Swiss authorities, Aitzaz Ahsan, however, maintained that not doing so could not be interpreted as contempt of court by prime minister.

“You have always known my position on the basis of which I have continuously advised the government that since the Office of the President (whosoever be the incumbent) imparts full immunity to the incumbent temporarily for the duration of the office, at home and abroad, the writing of the letter would not be of any consequence.”

“Hence I am in a position to defend you against the allegation that not writing it amounts to contempt”, Aitzaz told PM in his letter. How he defends his client, only time will tell. However, anybody going through the contents of this letter would conclude that the media has treated him unfairly, reducing him from a hero to a villain in a short span.

**The man credited for leading the lawyers’ movement at the height of the crisis, the one who stood for a greater cause instead of siding with his party, has been discredited within no time. Aitzaz’s hiring as PM Gilani’s counsel is a blessing in disguise as in addition to defending his client, he would also play the role of a fire fighter between the Supreme Court and the government. Instead of demanding any thing from the apex court, he has urged the government to behave and learn how to respect judiciary.

****The letter answers many questions being asked about his new role. **One of them relates to the SC-basher Babar Awan, who has vanished from the scene in no time. Without naming any one though, a line of advice by Aitzaz to his client, PM Gilani, was to keep away from the likes of Babar Awan in case he wants to be part of the solution.
**
“Persons indulging in unpalatable and uncouth criticism of the superior courts be restrained,” is the first of the three conditions set by Aitzaz for representing Gilani. So enormous was the influence this advice that the government had to drop the idea of re-appointing Babar as the law minister. Babar is found nowhere since then.

Incidentally, this letter, leaked to media by the Prime Minister’s Secretariat, not Aitzaz, is a kind of admission that the counsel’s advice is plausible. His second condition: “You and I will travel to the Court by ourselves and in all humility without a procession of any kind.” The prime minister’s appearance without taking a crowd to the court was in line with it.

Aitzaz’s third condition puts to rest many speculations regarding his fee. He has claimed a token fee of Rs100. Very few may be in the know that Aitzaz is one of the highest taxpayers. This year alone, he paid above Rs15 million as income tax, while many top lawyers do not pay tax at all.
**
**One may argue that a fat client like the prime minister can offer him anything in kind. Aitzaz has previously served as counsel to Gilani when the latter was in jail and nobody thought he would become the prime minister one day. He charged no fee even then. **

**Not only Gilani, President Asif Zardari also came out of jail through a counsel like Aitzaz. But he gained no benefit from either of them after they came to power. Instead, he was sidelined for being too vocal; his membership of Central Executive Committee (CEC) was suspended. Aitzaz didn’t care to respond to the show-cause notice served on him by the PPP’s secretary general Jehangir Badar, a pre-requisite for restoring membership.

When President Zardari invited Aitzaz to speak on the death anniversary of Benazir Bhutto, this orator-lawyer could not resist the temptation of calling a spade a spade. Having said so doesn’t mean his tilt to judges is motivated by some financial incentives. Aitzaz has paid through his nose for standing on high moral ground.

He remained out of practice for a long time during the struggle for the restoration of judiciary. Aitzaz announced he would not appear in the Dogar-led courts. While many leading lawyers vowed to do likewise in the beginning they backed out in no time and started regularly appearing in Dogar-led courts. Aitzaz, in contrast, kept his word, though he had to return the heavy fee to his clients. **

**The story doesn’t end here. Aitzaz announced that he wouldn’t appear before any bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry as he had been his counsel when the top judge was sent on forced leave.

The rebel in Aitzaz is not a recent phenomenon. It precedes his years as a practicing lawyer. He appeared in the CSS examination and stood first. An offer letter sent to him by Gen. Yahya, then new martial law administrator, was turned down by 23-year Aitzaz in October 1969.

“I am not prepared to mortgage my talent and integrity, both of which would be in jeopardy were I to accept your offer,” he wrote to Yahya, a letter that made headlines then, inspiring the confidence of the youth. **](“The News International: Latest News Breaking, World, Entertainment, Royal News”)

32

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan’s U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

This is the article by the same person who published the article that I posted in the previous post.

Has fading Aitzaz Ahsan betrayed his supporters? - The News

ISLAMABAD:** Enter Barrister Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan. He is a man with a name and fame, a star who has been rising and shining for a long time and eclipsing his peers. But he is fading, now writing concluding chapters of his career in the role of a villain, bashing the rule of law, a budding rebel to the justice system he struggled for. And at what cost?

I am writing these lines to regret my previous piece: “Aitzaz Ahsan proves his critics wrong,” published in January this year. It was written in his defence when majority of anchors and analysts reduced him to a punching bag for flip-flopping on presidential immunity.**

We thought engaging a person like him would bring a change in the PPP government’s attitude towards the judiciary. And Aitzaz had confirmed this. In a letter to the PM accepting him as a client, the Cambridge-educated Aitzaz advised him to rein in the likes of Babar Awan et al who spitting fire on the Supreme Court. “Persons indulging in unpalatable and uncouth criticism of the superior courts be restrained,” read his letter.

His advice was accepted. Babar Awan who was dreaming to become law minister was sent into political hibernation. Babar has now dug out his hiking sticks for a march to mountains. In sheer frustration, he has also started visiting the spiritual leaders to learn the art of living happily, the latest being his visit to a Hindu yogi, Sri Sri Ravi Shanker. His secret approaches to some judicial high-ups are raising fears in that PPP camp that he may not turn into an approver.

Babar’s junior associate in his firm, secretary law Masood Chishti, found his job in jeopardy. In short, this team of legal bashers felt being thrown to the wolf. Other centre forwards of the PPP team were also given marching orders by assigning them organisational matters of the party.

In this entire exercise, Aitzaz emerged on the scene taking charge of the legal matters, with prime minister’s contempt case topping the list. Aitzaz’s election as PPP Senator appears to have made his job harder.

Conspiracy theories were rife but still chronic optimists thought Aitzaz was principled man. His critics referred to the LPG quota case to blemish his past. But his unwavering struggle for the independent judiciary and the rule of law and abhorrence for corruption silenced them.

Since Aitzaz had publicly given his honest opinion that the PPP government will have to write a letter to the Swiss authorities for re-opening the cases in line with the Supreme Court order, many believed he would keep his word. He instead started compromising that has seen no let-up so far.

First he retracted on the letter issue soon after becoming the PM’s counsel. In a note to PM, he said though writing a letter is of no consequence, “hence I am in a position to defend you against the allegation that not writing it amounts to contempt.”

**As he appeared before the court, he said PM didn’t write the letter in line on the advice of the law ministry then headed by Babar Awan and Masood Chishti who refused to testify before the court. Aitzaz who was optimistic to convince the apex court with his arguments, had to face a big disappointment when they were altogether rejected and on merit leaving him with wounded ego.

Now, his expression of no-confidence in the Supreme Court Monday, a bid to save his clients-cum-patrons no matter if it undermines the principle of justice, has started showing his true colours. This is a radical departure from his past preaching. His tone and tenor indicates he is desperately trying to fit into the shoes of Babar Awan and others. Even Sharifuddin Pirzada with whom Aitzaz didn’t want to be bracketed, never backed out this way.
**
As Aitzaz had emerged as a saner voice during and after the restoration of judges, it was widely believed that he stands with the principles, not with any party. However, his decision to stand with the party at the cost of principles have left many feeling betrayed. His conduct is reminiscent of what was done by Geroge Blake, a British spy and a double agent in the service of the former Soviet Union.

He was caught by the British for his double role and sent to jail from where he escaped. During an interview later Blake, a Marxist-Leninist, was asked for betraying his own people, he denied being a traitor insisting he never felt British: “To betray, you have to belong first, I never belonged to them.” Blake, who fled back to Russia, is surviving on KGB pension.

33

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

Simple .
Lawyers is fighting a case . His personal views can be different but he has to fight the case on merit of the case .

34

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

he was the one active in lawyer's move ment talking abt the code of ecthics of politics where is his brain now when its comes to Zardari's swiss case.....by the way his stance on pm's writting letter has distorted his image badly..

35

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

If Zardari (as President) forcefully evicts Atetaz and Gillani from their properties and illegally transfer their properties in his name using forgery ... and further, use forgery to grab all money from their (Atetaz and Gillani) bank accounts and also kidnap their wives to keep them in President house as hostages (or for whatever), I bet both Atetaz and Gillani would run to police and would try to file cases against Zardari and would forget saying that ‘Zardari has immunity from prosecution’ so they could not file case against President Zardari and hence would wait for recovery of their wives, money and properties once Zardari leave President post.

*.

PS: In above cases Presidential immunity could not help President, because human rights would supersede Presidential immunity. Similarly there are many situations where Presidential immunity could not give immunity to President.

We should also know that even if Parliament passes a law with 2/3 majority, Supreme Court can make that law illegal on various grounds, like human rights violation or obvious violation of Islamic principles.

That is why, if question arises relating to constitution, one have to go to Supreme Court to find out interpretation of constitution. And when Supreme Court interprets or orders something, that becomes lawful interpretation of constitution and supersedes all other interpretations of constitution.

So, one cannot say that Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution wrongly or given unlawful orders, what both Atetaz and Gillani are saying (directly or indirectly). They both are guilty of demeaning Supreme Court and Supreme Court orders (worse than contempt of Court), and should be sent to prison.*

36

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

I agree with your brilliant reply except you spelled liar as lawyer.

or

30 million is enough to make a lawyer a liar

or

We take a principled stand only when we are away form a principle.

37

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

In that case, Mr. Sa1eem, Aitizaz will appear in the court not as an attorney for the defendant but as plain-tiff against the accused.

You can hardly win an argument with such a phenomenal hypothesis.

38

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

^^ You are right, and if that would happen in future, Atetaz would be regretting what he is saying these days, not only in front of Pakistanis but in front of his wives and Children too.

39

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

^^ If something like that would happen, then conversation between father and son would be:

Atetaz’s Son: Dad, Zardari has kidnapped our mum and now she is in President’s house.
Atetaz: What can I do son, Zardari has immunity.

Son: What? What immunity?
Atetaz: To me it is fine because Zardari has immunity. He can keep my wife as long as he is president.

Son: What? You immoral thug! ... What do you mean? Are you saying that if Zardari kidnaps your wife and two daughters you will not do anything?
Atetaz: Well, that is my opinion ‘as constitutional lawyer’. I have repeated many times on media, that Zardari as President has immunity from all prosecution, so I cannot file case against him as long as he is President. Anyhow son, wait once Zardari leaves his Presidential post.

Son: Dad, you are not only immoral but mentally retard. Why don’t you file the case and let Court decides on President’s immunity?
Atetaz: No son, I cannot do that. You are misunderstanding me. Samjha karo. I am loyal, damn loyal, loyal to core. For loyalty, I can sacrifice my wife, daughters, honesty, intelligence, religion, sense, and even you. My loyalty is most important to me, especially loyalty to Zardari and party he inherited (PPP). Zardari is great, he made me senator.

40

Re: Aitezaz Ahsan's U turn on NRO case and presidential immunity

One thing you are forgetting while producing this nonsense hypothesis. Zardari is Zardari not Altaf Hussain who is habbitual of committing above crimes you have quoted.