ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday observed that it would summon the prime minister if the government’s lawyers did not represent it on the review plea against the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) verdict.
The court observed that sometimes the counsel is changed and sometimes the Advocate-on-Record (AOR). The court also issued show cause notices to Advocate-on-Record (AOR), Raja Abdul Ghafoor, and Solicitor General of the Law ministry, Nasir Ali Shah, for giving false statements before the court about the AOR’s withdrawal from the case.
A 17-member full court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry resumed hearing on the government’s review plea against the NRO verdict. Additional Attorney General, K K Agha, who was supposed to argue the case, informed the court that he had no instructions from the federation to appear in the case and as per rules he could not appear without this permission. He repeatedly stated that the government be allowed to arrange another counsel.
The court then summoned Attorney General, Moulvi Anwarul Haq, who submitted that he had suggested a via media (compromise) to the government, which he did not want to disclose before the court, and for which he required a day’s time. The court allowed him this but warned that if the government did not stand his counsel today (Tuesday), the court would treat the government as it does a common man. The chief justice said all this was being done without bringing it to the prime minister’s notice. The News
Meanwhile, government’s AOR told the court that he had withdrawn from the case. He said he had written a letter to the Law Ministry for withdrawal on account of indisposition on April 14. The letter was accepted. On the instructions of the Ministry’s Solicitor, General Nasir Ali Shah, he had given a letter of authority to Syed Zafar Abbas Naqvi, AOR as per Supreme Court Rules, 1980.
The court noted that the record produced by Nasir Ali Shah on a court order did not contain Ghafoor’s letter. When inquired, Raja Ghafoor stated that he had not retained a copy of the letter sent by him. “Interestingly, there is no note sheet in the relevant file placed for our perusal by the Solicitor; according to him, the letter along with the said file is missing,” the court noted and issued show cause notices to the solicitor and Raja Ghafoor for giving false statements.
The court then noted that Raja Ghafoor had regularly been appearing not only in the NRO case, but also in several other cases, wherein he had filed his power of attorney on behalf of litigants as AOR. Prior to this he had never pointed out his disassociation or withdrawal on account of health reasons.
In a previous hearing the court directed the AOR that he would have to argue the NRO plea if no one else turned up to represent the government. It was noted that under the scheme of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, the AOR has the principal duty to argue the case in the absence of the concerned advocates.
The court observed that the courts are always interested in deciding cases on merit, always subject to the Constitution and the law while also ensuring that relief was not withheld on grounds of technicality.
The court noted that the government did not trust even its own chief law officer. “We had referred the NRO to parliament, but it didn’t touch it,” the chief justice reminded the court. The hearing was adjourned till today (Tuesday).
Online adds: Addressing Additional Attorney General, K K Agha’s statement that he had no instructions from the federation to appear in the case, the CJ said, “There is no counsel from the government side before us. This is the best justification for dismissing the review petition against the NRO verdict. If the government continues with this attitude then stay in the NRO implementation case will be vacated. SC order 21 is very clear. Rules allow you to give arguments.”
Later when AG Moulvi Anwar ul Haq told the court that the federation had not issued any directives to him in this respect (to give arguments), the CJ observed: “We are ready to allow time to you. But you should give the arguments. The federation has no trust either in Kamal Azfar or the AOR. Neither the AAG, nor AG, want to present arguments. The NRO was sent to parliament and they did not touch it. It was thrown outside the parliament. Now it has come to the court again and the government is using dirty tactics. Implementation was stayed due to the review petition. If this attitude on the part of government persists then we will vacate the stay. 18th Amendment case was adjourned due to this case. In whom has the Federation trust?”
The court observed that sometimes the counsel is changed and sometimes the Advocate-on-Record (AOR). The court also issued show cause notices to Advocate-on-Record (AOR), Raja Abdul Ghafoor, and Solicitor General of the Law ministry, Nasir Ali Shah, for giving false statements before the court about the AOR’s withdrawal from the case.
A 17-member full court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry resumed hearing on the government’s review plea against the NRO verdict. Additional Attorney General, K K Agha, who was supposed to argue the case, informed the court that he had no instructions from the federation to appear in the case and as per rules he could not appear without this permission. He repeatedly stated that the government be allowed to arrange another counsel.
The court then summoned Attorney General, Moulvi Anwarul Haq, who submitted that he had suggested a via media (compromise) to the government, which he did not want to disclose before the court, and for which he required a day’s time. The court allowed him this but warned that if the government did not stand his counsel today (Tuesday), the court would treat the government as it does a common man. The chief justice said all this was being done without bringing it to the prime minister’s notice. The News
Meanwhile, government’s AOR told the court that he had withdrawn from the case. He said he had written a letter to the Law Ministry for withdrawal on account of indisposition on April 14. The letter was accepted. On the instructions of the Ministry’s Solicitor, General Nasir Ali Shah, he had given a letter of authority to Syed Zafar Abbas Naqvi, AOR as per Supreme Court Rules, 1980.
The court noted that the record produced by Nasir Ali Shah on a court order did not contain Ghafoor’s letter. When inquired, Raja Ghafoor stated that he had not retained a copy of the letter sent by him. “Interestingly, there is no note sheet in the relevant file placed for our perusal by the Solicitor; according to him, the letter along with the said file is missing,” the court noted and issued show cause notices to the solicitor and Raja Ghafoor for giving false statements.
The court then noted that Raja Ghafoor had regularly been appearing not only in the NRO case, but also in several other cases, wherein he had filed his power of attorney on behalf of litigants as AOR. Prior to this he had never pointed out his disassociation or withdrawal on account of health reasons.
In a previous hearing the court directed the AOR that he would have to argue the NRO plea if no one else turned up to represent the government. It was noted that under the scheme of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, the AOR has the principal duty to argue the case in the absence of the concerned advocates.
The court observed that the courts are always interested in deciding cases on merit, always subject to the Constitution and the law while also ensuring that relief was not withheld on grounds of technicality.
The court noted that the government did not trust even its own chief law officer. “We had referred the NRO to parliament, but it didn’t touch it,” the chief justice reminded the court. The hearing was adjourned till today (Tuesday).
Online adds: Addressing Additional Attorney General, K K Agha’s statement that he had no instructions from the federation to appear in the case, the CJ said, “There is no counsel from the government side before us. This is the best justification for dismissing the review petition against the NRO verdict. If the government continues with this attitude then stay in the NRO implementation case will be vacated. SC order 21 is very clear. Rules allow you to give arguments.”
Later when AG Moulvi Anwar ul Haq told the court that the federation had not issued any directives to him in this respect (to give arguments), the CJ observed: “We are ready to allow time to you. But you should give the arguments. The federation has no trust either in Kamal Azfar or the AOR. Neither the AAG, nor AG, want to present arguments. The NRO was sent to parliament and they did not touch it. It was thrown outside the parliament. Now it has come to the court again and the government is using dirty tactics. Implementation was stayed due to the review petition. If this attitude on the part of government persists then we will vacate the stay. 18th Amendment case was adjourned due to this case. In whom has the Federation trust?”
