Supreme Court will give NRO case decision today

sc pakistanSupreme Court will give NRO case decision today. The seven-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC) implementation of the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Monday to restore hearing Geographic News reported. PM Gilani lawyer lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan asked the court to stay proceedings has not concluded his argument, however, the court rejected his request.

The verdict will be announced today, “judicial Nasirul Mulk join. Replace including the Department of Justice, Ministry of Justice Nasirul Mulk Asif Saeed Khan Khosa husband Sarmad Jalal Osmani judge Zal Khan, Ijaz Ahmad Duri Joe Justice, Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Athar Saeed heard the advice of the Prime Minister because of problems with implementation of the NRO.

Before the hearing, Aitzaz Ahsan said the Supreme Court has made allegations to his client on the bench does not have jurisdiction to hear such words, it will not be a fair trial, if it is to hear the case . Aitzaz make his argument, said that if someone complains that it can not effect the court to start contempt proceedings, but on the bench to start the process through the lock, motorcycle, bicycle or other means, said the bench to the right to hear the case.

“When one considers the session directed the district register of any country, even if it is not competent to hear the case,” said Aitzaz, advocated the principle of a fair trial, it are two: First, no one should be judge in their own affairs the second, a person shall be convicted without precedent. Aitzaz think, 10 some of the changes, which holds a fair trial and procedural rights of the state. Therefore, he advocated a fair trial and the process of law are fundamental rights of everyone in Pakistan. He further argues that the contempt of court, Ordinance 2003 was enacted in 2004, nothing in this respect the new regulations more effectively, he said, according to his information, the appeal is pending a court to clarify existing laws.

However, judicial Nasirul Mulk to remind counsel that the contempt of Court Act 2003. For the first time in the history of the country, you were struck by the legislation, which does not exist, “Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa said the lawyer scholar. Aitzaz, however, respond to the invasion 10, a bench, show that a notice or part loads is not competent to hear the case. “You stand to be disqualified, the development charges that Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, Ahsan argued.

However, Justice Muhammad Athar Saeed, obstruct Ahsan, said judges are not sitting here as an individual, but after hearing the case of contempt of court. An alternate member of the Justice  Zal Khan observed, this situation is very interested, he can not say not having heard the Chief Justice. Judge Afzal said: “It is the prerogative of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, we have not made any effort to hear this case.

Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany noted that the Chief Justice the notification lock motor does not execute the orders of the court, on the NRO. Aitzaz continue to campaign in the 10 and said the replacement is not entitled to hear the case, Justice Muhammad Athar Saeed said the lawyer learned that their cause is the realization of the SC decision.

Aitzaz answer that everyone respects the court order. Nasirul Mulk judge noted that if this is the case, then it will cause the execution of the order of NRO judgment of the Court, in paragraph 178. Justice Khosa said that this is the cause of the courts and people and protect the rights enshrined in the constitution of the people. “Will you be back in Pakistan money?” Khosa judge asked the lawyers learned that the “Vienna Convention”, to remind him.

Aitizaz, however, argued that until the Office of the President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari held its immunity from civil or criminal. He said the implementation of the order of the relevant part of the NRO is not possible, the privileges and immunities under international law, because the president.

One comment

  1. The chief justice’s explication of the guiding judicial principle that “the courts must not act as an Opposition to the government” similarly sets another confine of the court realm. In a speech CJP said that the government had failed in its responsibility. The Opposition, obviously, also has been pronouncing the same. Thus the courts have to be more circumspect not to blur the lines as they certainly have a right to comment on the efficiency of the functionaries involved in any particular case under their consideration yet a pervasive blanket disapproval of the government at an out of court entrants event is certainly beyond their boundaries. The executive is an embodiment of the aspirations of the electorate — it has to submit to their evaluation and to command a continuous confidence of their parliament. Any certificate for their conduct and performance by the superior courts constitutes neither a condition nor a criterion for their success or failure. This evidently also restricts the courts’ incursions to curtail the executive authority such as fixing of sugar prices or the recent lightning command for a commitment not to sack the two commanders.