News
Monday, April 01, 2013
Fate of three heads of PPP’s poll campaign rests with SCStaff Report
ISLAMABAD: With general elections around the corner, the Supreme Court has taken up cases against senior leaders of the Pakistan People’s Party who are in-charge of party campaign across the country.
The cases to be taken-up include former Premier Raja Pervez Ashraf’s contempt and Rental Power Projects scam, alleged involvement of Amin Fahim in NICL scam and contempt proceedings against Rehman Malik that may be a setback for the PPP with the elections just over a month away.
Meanwhile, an eight member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry will take up former Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s intra-court appeal (ICA) tomorrow ( Monday), praying the court to set aside his conviction and sentence for contempt of court.
Another five member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali will hear NAB Chairman Admiral (R) Fasih Bukhari’s ICA tomorrow (Monday) against court’s March 20 order to frame the charge against him.
NAB chairman in his ICA expressed mistrust over the CJP, saying that in the past, he was attacked in his personal capacity by the chief justice and his son, therefore he should recused himself from this case.
On April 26, 2012, a seven-member bench convicted and sentenced the former PM under Article 204(2) of the constitution read with the section 3 of contempt of court Ordinance till the rising of the court. On June 19, 2012, a three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry disqualified Yousaf Raza Gillani, from the office of Prime Minister as well as member of the Parliament.
In February 2013, Gilani had filed a review petition against his disqualification but a three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, on March 13, ordered him to first remove the hurdle in the way of his disqualification as member of National Assembly.
In pursuance of that order Gilani on March 14 filed the intra court appeal, in person, under section 19 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003.
Former PM stated that during the entire contempt proceedings, neither the court, nor the counsel involved in prosecuting the appellant broached upon the issue whether the “disobedience of court” directions in the NRO case, ‘tended to bring the Supreme Court and the judiciary into ridicule.’
The petitioner stated that despite his clear and unequivocal support and respect for the judiciary he was erroneously convicted and sentenced for ‘wilful flouting, disregard and disobedience of apex court in the order passed in National Reconciliation Ordinance.
Even before taking oath as the prime minister and assuming his office as the prime minister, his first official order on the floor of the parliament was the release of all deposed judges of the Supreme Court and the high court who were arrested by the military dictator.
The ICA contended that in March 2009, when the issue of restoring the chief justice cropped up, there was a strong lobby eagerly requesting him to make the next senior judge as the chief justice. However he took a principled stand and passed the orders for the restoration of the chief justice and other judges.
“The appellant has always obeyed the orders of the apex court and held the judiciary in highest esteemed as he firmly believes that a free and independent judiciary serves one of the most vital functions of the State by enforcing the laws of the country and the delivery of justice,” the ICA stated.
ICA further stated that despite his clear and unequivocal support and respect for the judiciary, he was erroneously convicted for contempt of court for wilful flouting, disregard and disobedience of this court. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant till the rising of court, the ICA stated, was harsh and not justified under the law and therefore liable to be set aside.
He pleaded before the apex court to set aside the April 24, 2012 sentence in the contempt case
The November 14, 2012 order of the Supreme Court whereby the prime minister was allowed to write to the Swiss authorities with specific addition of words “without prejudice to the president’s claim regarding immunity under Article 248 of the constitution, had the effect of rectifying the earlier wrong, he argued. This requires that the wrong/disqualification suffered by the petitioner should also be rectified so that his position is vindicated, he pleaded.
Courtesy www.dailytimes.com.pk