I hope our SC can follow the kafir Italian court who scrapped the immunity available to Silvio Berlusconi. According to Islamic principle no one including the head of state is immune to justice. Our constitution ensures to uphold Islamic values:
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
The wind blows against NRO in SC
By Usman Manzoor
ISLAMABAD: The 17-member bench on Tuesday set its tone on discussing the consequences if the National Reconciliation Ordinance is declared void ab initio and Abdul Hafeez Pirzada urged the court to protect the Constitution “even if the heavens were to fall”.
The honourable chief justice asked both the lawyers, Salman Akram Raja and Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, who argued the case on Tuesday, about the consequences if the NRO was declared void ab initio. Both submitted that the cases withdrawn under the NRO should be restored to October 4, 2007 position.
When Salman Akram Raja was arguing on the illegality of the NRO and quoted Indra Gandhi’s case where elections were held null and void by the Election Commission but a constitutional amendment was brought to legitimise the polls and the Indian Supreme Court had set aside that amendment,** Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry asked the counsel to arrange the recent Italian Supreme Court’s judgment where the immunity enjoyed by Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, was scrapped. **
While discussing the provisions of the lapsed NRO Abdul Hafeez Pirzada discussed in detail the conviction of a person in absentia. He was referring to Section 6 of the lapsed ordinance. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday remarked that under section 89 of CrPC a person can be convicted in absentia and his property can be confiscated. At this stage the **Chief Justice also mentioned Article 63 (p) of the Constitution pertaining to disqualification of a person from holding a public office on charge of absconding from the courts. **
Both lawyers also focused on the powers of the legislature to make laws and observed that the NRO was an assault on the judiciary and was in fact an illegal legislative judgment in which thousands of cases were terminated within six weeks. Justice Ramday remarked, “This does not mean that we are the mighty powerful but we are the custodians of people’s rights.”
Abdul Hafeez Pirzada while explaining the term reconciliation said that NRO was not reconciliation, as it covered only that era when democratic forces were in power and the allegation of political victimisation was raised.
It appears from the mode of hearing that the judgment of these petitions would not be delayed and it may come in a few days as there is no one to defend NRO. The list of 248 beneficiaries of the NRO was also submitted in the court.
It was ironic to see that while the PPP leadership had been publicly defending the NRO for the past two years, inside the courtroom one could not find a single supporter of the despised and lapsed ordinance. Moreover, not a single judge in the 17-member full court gave any observation which could even remotely be construed to being sympathetic towards the NRO.