— Dawn (File Photo)

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani threw the ball back to the Supreme Court on Wednesday by requesting it to first settle the contempt matter and then raise the issue of implementation of the NRO verdict.

At the fag end of Wednesday’s proceedings on a contempt of court against the prime minister by a seven-judge bench, Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq said he had received some instructions which he would be filing during the course of the day.

At the last hearing on March 8, the bench headed by Justice Nasirul Mulk had directed the AG to convey its message to the prime minister that the contempt proceedings would not affect the NRO implementation part.

The prime minister is facing contempt charges for not pursuing the graft cases in Switzerland in which President Asif Ali Zardari is also an accused.

The prime minister was specifically directed by the court to disregard the advice given by the secretaries concerned and implement the directive contained in paragraphs 177 and 178 in the NRO judgment.

The court decided to hear the fresh reply by the prime minister on March 29, though further proceeding on the contempt matter was adjourned for Thursday that will continue on a day-to-day basis.

The reply filed through the attorney general requested the court to undertake further proceedings on the NRO implementation case after completing the contempt matter. “Although the contempt proceedings and the implementation case are different, yet the issue involves essentially and materially the same,” it said.

The prime minister’s earlier statement that the state of Pakistan could not surrender its president for a trial by a foreign magistrate and that the issue of president’s immunity was of public concern and, therefore, it should be referred to parliament, was also annexed with the fresh application.

Earlier, pointing to Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, who is representing the prime minister, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa observed that the last of the six options the court had outlined in its Jan 10 order on the basis of which the contempt proceedings commenced was the most misunderstood proposition.

He reminded the counsel that the court still reserved the right to exercise this option even today if the respondent (prime minister) pleaded guilty for not writing the letter.

In the sixth option, the court had focussed on exercising judicial restraint and leaving the matter to the better judgment of the people of the country or their representatives in parliament to appropriately deal with the delinquent if the executive is bent upon defying and is ready to go to any limit in such.

“Are you suggesting that you are accepting delinquency,” Justice Gulzar Ahmed asked the counsel and said the contempt matter was being tried at three different venues -- the court, television channels and public meetings. He was apparently referring to the prime minister’s public meeting in Mailsi.

Barrister Ahsan insisted that the prime minister had not committed any contempt and still believed that the letter could not be written to the Swiss authorities as long as Asif Zardari was the president. “For the time being, NRO verdict is not implementable because the president enjoys international protection against any criminal or civil case. We are not pleading for setting aside the NRO judgment or to review it but only highlighting that the president’s status is unique under the international law.”

The counsel also expressed lack of confidence in the bench and said that after making harsh observations against the prime minister by it in earlier orders, it would be difficult to get complete justice.

“You know we are sitting here with open minds,” Justice Athar Saeed said, adding that whatever “we had said were not final”.

“I hope so but don’t know,” Mr Ahsan said.

“You should not doubt the court since whatever decision is arrived at by the bench will be in accordance with the law,” Justice Khosa observed.

But the counsel said the court could not punish the respondent on assumptions, adding that judges were also fallible and could make mistakes.

He then referred to the Article 10-A added to the Constitution through the 18th Amendment and emphasised that fair trial which was now a fundamental right had been made mandatory.

“Are you trying to say that this bench after initiating the contempt proceeding is not competent to hear the matter,” Justice Nasir asked.

After making such harsh pre-trial opinion, the bench should not decide the case, Mr Ahsan replied.

Justice Khosa went on to explain that the respondent could have been convicted of committing the contempt straightaway, but he had been given every opportunity. “Trust us we are absolutely fair and impartial and trained to become dispassionate.”

The counsel also tried to shift the responsibility for not implementing the court’s order to the attorney general, law secretary and chairman and prosecutor general of NAB, instead of the prime minister, by saying that the dismay expressed by the court in its last orders and the six options drawn by the court should have been aimed at them.

Referring to the last three court orders of Jan 3, 10 and 16, Mr Ahsan argued that no contumacy could be attributed to the respondent except on the assumption that the bucks stopped at the prime minister’s office. He then hastened to add that in a criminal case when criminal sentence was possible along with all dire consequences, including permanent clog through disqualification and a harsh and severe punishment of six months, the court should not proceed on assumptions that the prime minister had the knowledge about the court hearing the implementation case.

“Here no evidence is available to establish contumacy,” the counsel said.