In their exclusive talk with The News, Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq, as well as senior SC advocate SM Zafar, had given the lie to the “facts” as narrated by Gilani in his recent reply filed before the apex court through his counsel.
Gilani gave in writing to the apex court that he was not informed of different decisions of the SC in the NRO implementation case but his own attorney general told this newspaper that after every decision, he had been meeting the prime minister to brief him on the court verdicts and directions.
Submitted in writing before the apex court, the prime minister referred to Article 10-A of the Constitution to prove that this part of the 18th Amendment was introduced to deal with cases like the one he presently faces in the apex court.
However, SM Zafar, who had proposed the insertion of this very article in the Constitution and was part of the 18th Amendment committee of parliament, said that this stipulation was adopted specifically to afford a “fair trial and due process of law” to civilians tried under the Army Act, having no right of appeal in civilian superior courts.
This situation has exposed the prime minister as misrepresenting and distorting facts despite the fact that the Supreme Court, in its January 10 order, had already raised the question if the prime minister was “Ameen” and “honest” but his latest reply filed before the apex court has increased such doubts.
In its January 10 decision, the apex court, on the issue of non-implementation of NRO decision by the prime minister, had said: “.....the apparent persistent, obstinate and contumacious resistance, failure or refusal of the chief executive of the federation, i.e. the prime minister to completely obey, carry out or execute the directions issued by this court in the case of Dr. Mobashir Hassan (supra) reflects, at least, prima facie, that he may not be an honest person on account of his not being honest to the oath of his office and seemingly he may not be an ameen due to his persistent betrayal of the trust reposed in him as a person responsible for preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution and also on account of allowing his personal political interest to influence his official conduct and decisions.”
In his recent reply in the contempt of court case, the PM said: “I submit that I have been informed that this hon’ble court cannot and should not attribute knowledge to an accused person on a mere presumption. Knowledge must actually be proved. It cannot be presumed. Even the documents presented by the prosecution (Attorney General) that comprise a series of orders passed by this Hon’ble Court, were not contemporaneously brought to my knowledge in my capacity as the prime minister or otherwise. I was not apprised of the proceedings of this hon’ble court although they may well have been in the knowledge of the learned Attorney General, the Law Secretary and the Law Minister.”
In response to this written argument of the PM, the AG told The News on Wednesday last that he always conveyed all the orders and directions of the Supreme Court to all concerned, including President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani, in the cases relating to contempt and non-implementation of the judgment on the NRO. “It is a mere allegation, having no basis,” Maulvi Anwarul Haq said.
Claiming that he had encouraged parliament to adopt a new fundamental right, enshrined in Article 10-A in the Constitution through 18th Amendment, the prime minister objected that the present seven-member bench cannot hear the contempt case.
But to Pir-o-Murshad’s bad luck, the very originator of Article 10A of the Constitution on “right to fair trial”, SM Zafar, has trashed the line of reasoning of Prime Minister Gilani and his lawyer in the contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court by saying that this stipulation was adopted specifically to afford a “fair trial and due process of law” to civilians tried under the Army Act, having no right of appeal in civilian superior courts.
“It was at my initiative alone that Article 10A was added to the then under consideration 18th Amendment in the 26-member multi-party parliamentary committee on constitutional reforms, which prepared its draft,” leading legal expert SM Zafar had told The News on Thursday.
He said the basic and primary reason behind introducing this article was to provide respite to those civilians who are prosecuted under the Army Act but have no right of appeal to high courts or the Supreme Court.
These two statements of the AG and former senator and the very originator of Article 10-A has not only further spoiled PM’s case in the apex court but also furthered the doubts if such a person, who distorts and mutilates facts before the Supreme Court could be an “Ameen” and “honest”, which are the most important pre-conditions for a member of parliament and provincial assemblies.
Is this just another case waiting to be filled in the Supreme Court to judge whether the chief executive of the country qualifies to be so? Will he pass the honesty test? The evidence is strong against him.
No comments:
Post a Comment