Hearing the contempt of court case against Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani for not writing a letter to Swiss authorities for reopening graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari, a seven-member special bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday observed that if it was supposed that the president enjoyed immunity, the immunity might shield him from prosecution, but not from writing a letter to Swiss authorities.
The special bench of Justice Nasirul Mulk, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Muhammad Ather Saeed directed Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s counsel Aitzaz Ahsen to conclude his arguments by today (Friday). In his arguments, Aitzaz contended that not only the United Nations Resolution, but also the International Court of Justice (ICJ) had acknowledged the immunity enjoyed by the heads of states. He also presented before the court a Memorandum by the UN Secretariat, which provided immunity to diplomats‚ foreign ministers‚ missions and all heads of states.
Referring various cases, he said the ICJ had also halted proceedings against the heads of states on the grounds that they enjoyed immunity.
He said the heads of the states of Republic of Congo and Jaboti were exempted from cases under the same law.
He said in Jaboti’s case, the head of state was not even summoned as a witness. He said due to the law of immunity, late Moamar Gaddafi escaped proceedings against him in France.
He said in General Pinochet’s case, the court had held that the head of the sate had the immunity like that of the state. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa remarked that in different areas, heads of states had been termed as first diplomats. Justice Khosa added that due to increasing violations of traffic rules in New York, the diplomatic immunity had been limited there and certain restrictions were now being imposed.
During the hearing, when Aitzaz stressed that the president enjoyed absolute immunity in civil and criminal cases, Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany noted that “the immunity is from initiation of case, not from writing the letter”.
Aitzaz said the head of states even in exile or incognito also enjoyed this immunity. He urged the court to see only the intentions and the knowledge of the respondent as per the evidence of the record and whether there was adequate material to infer justification.
He also read out the Supreme Court’s orders and the summaries written to the prime minister by the Law Ministry about the implementation of the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) verdict, particularly to the extent of writing a letter to the Swiss authorities for reopening graft cases against the president. He said according to the rules of business, the law ministry and law secretary were responsible for implementing the court’s order in the NRO case. The court then observed that its orders should have to be implemented by everyone concerned. Later, the court adjourned further hearing until today (Friday).
