News
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Review petition against SC’s verdict on NRO
SC rejects govt plea for changing counsel
* CJP tells Kamal Azfar court will dismiss review petition if he does not argues in the case * Rules make it mandatory that a lawyer who argues the main case pleads the review petition * Directs Azfar to take instructions from govt regarding the matter till today
By Hasnaat Malik
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the federal government’s plea for changing its counsel for its representation in the review petition against the court’s December 16, 2009, judgement on the annulled National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO).
The apex court also directed the federation’s counsel, Kamal Azfar, to take instructions from the government over the issue of its representation in the review case and apprise the court with the same by Tuesday (today).
In its order, the 17-judge full court bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, observed that no one except Azfar, lead counsel for the federation, could be allowed to argue under Order 26 of Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules.
At the outset of the proceedings, Azfar, who had filed the review plea on behalf of the federation, read a one-page statement to the bench, saying that “he had informed the Ministry of Law that he would not represent the federation in this case”.
The court noted that substitution of counsel in cases was allowed only in unavoidable circumstances which was not an issue in the instant matter. It also observed that it had accepted Khosa as his (Azfar) replacement after he had been made adviser to the prime minister on disaster management.
Azfar said, “I have returned the brief and I welcome the appointment of Dr Khalid Ranjha as a counsel for the federation in place of Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, now Punjab governor.”
He also submitted that the federation might be given an opportunity to appoint a substitute for Khosa.
Upon this, Justice Chaudhry said to him, “You are no longer an adviser and Khosa has become the Punjab governor, therefore, you have to plead the case.” “If you would not argue”, then it would be deemed that the federation was not interested and the court would dismiss the petition, said the CJP, adding, “Your presence in the case would be appreciated.”
The court noted that the court’s rules made it mandatory that a lawyer who argues the main case must also plead the review petition.
Justice Jawwad S Khawaja remarked that if a 17-member bench allowed such a prayer then a precedent would be set for the future.
Azfar said he never desired not to represent the government but he was under the impression that substitution of Khosa had taken place.
Justice Muhammad Sair Ali promptly replied that the court did not function under an impression.
During the proceedings, Additional Attorney General (AAG) KK Agha asked the 17-judge bench to allow him to represent the government in the case, the request which the court did not grant. The CJP told Agha that two counsels could not argue the same case.
Wasim Sajjad, counsel for Malik Abdul Qayyum, former attorney general, and a party to the case, apprised the court that his client was ill and could not appear personally.
The CJP told him that if he could appear personally as certain things would be different with his presence.
“Let that man come and plead his case and you could only assist him,” said the court.
On December 16, 2009, a larger bench had declared the NRO as void ab initio in its judgement and ordered the government for reopening of criminal cases against politicians.
Courtesy www.dailytimes.com.pk