ISLAMABAD: While the government has simplified the job of the 17-member full bench of the Supreme Court to decide the fate of the notorious NRO by refusing to defend it, petitioners are preparing to seek the apex court’s interpretation on other critically-linked issues.
These crucial issues include constitutional immunity available to the president and provincial governors, implementation of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, which refer to the integrity and honesty of the elected office holders, the neutrality, fairness and independence of prosecutors and the need for across-the-board accountability system to check mounting corruption in the society.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry has already shown how important these issues are by including every judge, from all the provinces, sit together and constitute a full court to hear this highly important case. Attorney General Shah Khawar is not going to defend the government but has been directed by the apex court to assist it. There would also be three amicus curiae, including former chief justice Lahore High Court Mian Allah Nawaz, Justice retried Shaiq Usmani and Sardar Khan, all reputed legal minds, assisting the full court in this case.
The amicus curiae were nominated by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Ifitkhar Muhammad Chaudhry on October 22, 2003, when a three-member bench, led by the CJ, had set back the then government’s programme of cleansing Benazir Bhutto and other politicians of corruption charges under the National Reconciliation Ordinance by declaring that benefits drawn would be subject to its decisions on petitions, challenging the legality of the ordinance.
Later, after the Nov 3 PCO of Musharraf, the dictator’s hand-picked chief justice, Abdul Hameed Dogar, reversed the October 22, 2007 Supreme Court’s decision but without issuing notices and hearing these three amicus curiae, which was otherwise mandatory.
Now these respected “friends of the court” would assist the full court in interpreting the Constitution and decide the fate of the NRO. Not only that the future of Asif Ali Zardari’s Presidency is connected with the outcome of this case but quite a few key NRO-laundered members of the presidential camp, including federal ministers, ambassadors and re-employed bureaucrats, have also set their eyes on the country’s independent and widely respected apex court, whose decision if handed down in favour of the petitioners, would bring extreme pressure on them to quit.
One of the petitions, challenging the NRO, also talks of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, which envisage qualifications and disqualifications of members of parliament, the prime minister, the president, etc. In connection with the ongoing discussion on the future of the NRO and the possible reopening of the corruption cases against the president and other members of the government, it is generally said the president enjoys constitutional immunity that does not allow the initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings in any court against the head of the state during the period of his term in office.
However, Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution set the conditions for both the members of parliament and the president to be “honest”, “sagacious”, “righteous” and “Ameen” besides having “good character” and adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings, practices and obligatory duties as prescribed by Islam.
It is said that the conditions set by these articles of the Constitution for the president and members of parliament are not subject to any conviction by a court of law. Some of the petitioners are expected to raise these issues to seek the court’s guidance whether certain members of the government tainted with corruption charges fulfil the conditions of being Ameen, honest and sagacious, and if they have the reputation of having “good character”.
