THE Supreme Court has finally given the verdict on the NRO issue. The decision, which includes the provision of options to be chosen by the government, has never been seen in the history of jurisprudence.

It has set a new precedent (in case, the larger bench decides according to the option chosen by the government), where the courts are to decide the future cases by giving such options to the convicted party.

Such a precedent, if set, may be injurious for the delivery of justice.

In the verdict of Jan 10, it seems that the court has given the importance to the political repercussions, which might be devastating for democracy, while penning the verdict.

Now coming to the option 6, which asks the people to decide which government they want, is not the job of the courts. Instead, the courts have to ensure the rule of law by deciding the cases as per the constitution of Pakistan. What would be the status of the NRO cases, if the public stands behind the PPP? However, it contains wisdom to also give due importance to the political repercussions a verdict may have, but not at the cost of justice and the rule of law.

In another option, where the President may come under the contempt and so disqualified under Article 63, is confusing.

After the 18th Amendment, the President is not the Chief Executive of the country to implement the decisions of the court.

Instead, the prime minister is to execute the orders of the Supreme Court. Therefore, only the PM, not the President can be charged for the contempt. A court may initiate the proceedings against the PM and the relevant secretaries. However, it needsto be seen in what capacity the court has involved President into its verdict.

In a nutshell, the verdict of the SC on the implementation of NRO case needs to be revisited.The courtis to decide the cases according to the law and the constitution. In case the government does not implement the verdict, the contempt proceedings can only be initiated against the executing officers (the PM, NAB Chairman and the law secretary in this case).

As a last resort, a commission can be made by the court to take the executive powers for the implementation of the verdict.

HASSAN SHAHJEHAN Lahore

A soft stance

THE verdict on the NRO case has not satisfied the concerns of many people who were expecting an explicit ruling to take corrective action against all involved.

Forwarding the verdict with six options to a higher bench to review and pass a judgment is indicative of a soft stance by the apex court under prevailing extenuating circumstances in Pakistan.

Though the court stated categorically that the civilian government had failed to comply with court ruling and both the chief executive and the head of state were not sincere in implementing the court order deliberately during the last two years, it does not look apparent that the miracle will happen on the seventhday.

Failure of the prime minister and the president in complying with the ruling of the court, imply that they may not beregarded as honest and faithful to the country due to violation of their oaths.

Resentment in re-opening amnesty and NRO cases, and the recent memogate scandal have put the government, military and the judiciary on a collision course.

Unfortunately, all political parties, including PML (N) could not keep their promises. All leaders have worked for their vested interests flip-flopping on issues and are equally responsible for the current complex situation in Pakistan.

Condoleezza Rice, ex secretary of state of the US had mentioned in her book how NRO was fabricated by the US in consultation with Musharraf, Zardari and others to protect American interests for a moderate regime that could follow directives from the US.

Now equating 'Plea bargaining', of the Sharif brothers to the current NRO, both by Mr. Yousuf Raza and the ex-president is indicative of their guilt as the Sharif brothers made the deal to save their lives when democratic mandate was overthrown by Musharraf, whereas the NRO conspiracy was collectively chalked by the trio of Musharraf, the PPP and the US.

MOHAMMAD ASHRAF Winnipeg, Canada

Episode of contempt cases

IT seems that there will be a new episode of contempt cases to follow this verdict of the Supreme Court.

Up to a large extent, the SC must blame itself for the disrespect shown towards its decisions by politicians especially from government quarters.The statements of the judges and everyday court proceedings have now become a regular feature of all newspapers and TV talk shows.

Disparaging comments by judges give the impression of the judges into political figures. These comments and statements are repeated a number of times in talk shows without any cessation.

The media clout seems to influence the respected judges as well. This is a very new phenomenon especially for Pakistanis who happened to hear about the 'court's decisions' only and that too only through newspapers. Since everything is now discussed among public, politicians being public figures disseminate their discontent openly and thus provide content of ridicule for superior courts publicly.

The sad part is that the entire full court bench is busy hearing cases involving government related cases and has not contributed an inch towards minimising a common man misery that has to wait for years to get a decision in trivial cases.

A common citizen is forced to think that there is no one to look for justice and equity. The plight of the lower courts is a reflection of the ignorance shown by higher courts towards system improvement in favour of the masses.

It would have been heartening if the CJ had appointed the honourable judges from the Supreme Court to monitor and improve the ongoing situation and performance of the lower courts in all four provinces where decisions are still made based on possession of wealth and power.

ALI AMMAR Karachi