ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court told the federal government on Monday that its review petition against the verdict declaring the controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) illegal would be taken up only after the court office admitted the petition.

A 17-judge full court, however, allowed federal government’s counsel Advocate Kamal Azfar to argue the review petition of which he is not the author but, which had to be moved by Advocate Masood Chisti in his absence.

The court also allowed the counsel to submit additional grounds to the review petition by removing certain objectionable grounds which the Registrar Office had earlier pointed out.

The court also decided to take up the review petitions of former Attorney General Malik Mohammad Qayyum and Chairman, Prosecutor General and Additional Prosecutor General of National Accountability Bureau against the NRO judgment after the federal government’s petition was fixed.

Meanwhile, the government, in additional grounds which it submitted on Monday, pleaded that the NRO was past and closed transaction and was a dead piece of legislation when taken up for discussion during the proceedings against the NRO.

Once the federation had conceded in the court hearing the case that it would not contest, the additional grounds contended, there was no legal grounds or justifiable reasons to pronounce a detailed judgment going beyond the parameters of the pleading and prayers in the petition and connected petition.

Thus the court, through its judgment on NRO, made a mistake by ordering the government and relevant authorities to seek revival of mutual legal assistance with the Swiss authorities by reopening $60 million money laundering cases involving President Asif Ali Zardari. This is contrary to principles of international law in foreign countries.

The court also failed to realise that under the relevant Swiss laws, a request for the mutual legal assistance cannot be granted if Switzerland or in the state where the offence was committed, the judge acquits the defendant or discontinues the proceedings for material reasons.

The same principle has also been applied by the Supreme Court in the 2007 Mumtaz Ali Shah versus Chairman PTCL case.

The court, the grounds submitted by the government, said, had erred in its judgment by holding that it had the power to review presidential ordinance issued under Articles 89 of the Constitution when at the same time it also conceded that it did not have the ability to strike down temporary legislation.

Claiming the court’s power to strike down ordinances under Article 89 would infringe upon the doctrine of trichotomy of powers and upon the supremacy of the parliament, it said.

The court also erred in its judgment when it held that the president had no power to promulgate the NRO under Article 89 because the NRO was a subject matter which fell beyond the scope of the federal and the concurrent list, it said.

At the same time, the court in its July 31 judgment of rejecting the Nov 3, 2007, emergency by Gen (retd) Pervez Musharrf had held that the parliament had the power to enact the NRO as an act.

“If the parliament had the ability to pass the NRO into a law, the president also had the power to promulgate an ordinance in respect of the NRO being part of the parliament,” it said.

The court, in the July 31 judgment, had extended the life of the NRO for four months and it lapsed on Nov 28, 2009, and stood repealed.

Accordingly, all benefits acquired under the NRO up to Nov 2009 stood protected by virtue of Article 264 of the Constitution.

The court has also failed in the NRO verdict to realise the background of the political victimisation stemming from the Ehtesab Act of 1997 that was later converted into the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. Both were used as tools of political victimisation.

The court went beyond its jurisdiction by holding that the NRO was repugnant to injunctions of Islam, it said, adding that this subject was related to Article 203 of the Constitution to be adjudicated upon by the Federal Shariat Court.

In a related development, a five-judge bench headed by Justice Nasirul Mulk ordered the law ministry to draft a fresh summary for the prime minister for implementing its verdict on Swiss cases and the secretary law should apprise the bench on July 12 about implementing the directive.

The order was issued when Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq told the court that the law ministry had not yet submitted to the prime minister the summary which it had to forward in the light of the directions issued by the apex court on June 11.

At the last hearing, the court had asked to issue a fresh summary for making claims of the government as a damaged civil party and claims over money in Swiss banks.

Courtesy by dawn.com