ISLAMABAD, Feb 5: The Supreme Court will resume on Wednesday hearing identical challenges against the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) 2007 promulgated by President Pervez Musharraf on the demand of slain PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto to provide amnesty to public office holders charged in different corruption cases between 1986 and 1999.

A five-member bench comprising Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Justice Ijaz-ul-Hassan and Justice Chaudhry Ejaz Yousaf will take up five identical petitions against the NRO.

The NRO was promulgated by President Pervez Musharraf on October 5, 2007, to provide immediate relief to Ms Bhutto by giving indemnity in all cases registered against her by the Nawaz Sharif government.

Soon after the promulgation of the ordinance, a number of petitions challenging the ordinance were filed by Jamaat-i-Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmed, PML-N president Shahbaz Sharif, retired bureaucrat Roedad Khan, Tariq Assad and former PPP stalwart Dr Mubashar Hasan through their counsel under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

A pre-Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) bench comprising deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi and Mian Shakirullah Jan had also heard the matter on October 12, 2007 and served notices on Attorney General Malik Muhammad Qayyum, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and the federal and provincial governments.

Though the bench had declined to stay the operation of the NRO, explaining ordinarily portions of the law were never suspended, it had made it clear that any action and benefit drawn or intended to be drawn by any of the public office holders should be subject to its decision on the petitions.

In view of the importance of the case, the court had also sought the assistance of amicus curiae (friend of the court) by requesting former chief justice of Lahore High Court, Mian Allah Nawaz, former Sindh High Court judge Shaiq Usmani and Advocate Sardar Khan to assist it.

The petitioners have contended that the ordinance was against all norms of decency. Under Article 45 of the Constitution, the president could pardon or remit a sentence awarded by a court but he had no authority to suspend or give indemnity on pending cases.

They contended that the ordinance violated the fundamental rights of the people, was against political justice and also contravened the United Nations Convention against corruption to which Pakistan was signatory.