SC summons details of NRO beneficiaries

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

SC summons details of NRO beneficiaries

Monday, December 07, 2009

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has summoned details of NRO beneficiaries including the record of debate on the law in the Parliament, details of cases from the Sindh province and beneficiaries of NAB cases.

The 17-judge full court, headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, began the hearing of petitions against NRO.

Meanwhile, the Federation and Provinces have announced not to defend NRO.

Justice Khalil Rehman Ramday in his remarks during the hearing termed the NRO as a law paving way for reconciliation with corruption.

Acting Attorney General Shah Khawar said the NRO was promulgated by the previous government and not by the present government and that the latter will not defend this law.

Lawyers of all the four provinces and NAB present in the court also announced not to defend NRO. On this, the SC sought opinion of representatives of the Federation and the provinces on the impact of the decision of not defending the NRO by the Federation and its units. The court also summoned verified details from NAB on people who received financial benefits.

The Chief Justice pointing to the NAB counsel, said the court be told with complete responsibility if anyone derived financial benefit of even a single penny.

Earlier, the counsel of Dr. Salman Raja presented his arguments before the court.

The SC on the occasion accepted the petition of Jamat-e-Islami on NRO which had been rejected earlier.

SC summons details of NRO beneficiaries - GEO.tv

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

The trap is in execution now . I expect CJ to act fast and include the list of NRO beneficiaries in ECL so that the corrupt can meet their rightful fate . But if he dosent than these facist would escape only to return and to haunt and poisen all the future Political Establishments . I hope CJ doesent allows them to escape the wrath ...
The Ordinary People are looking towards the SC like Hawks and CJ's credibility is also on stakes ....

 

[SSGPA1]

The trap is in execution now . I expect CJ to act fast and include the list of NRO beneficiaries in ECL so that the corrupt can meet their rightful fate . But if he dosent than these facist would escape only to return and to haunt and poisen all the future Political Establishments . I hope CJ doesent allows them to escape the wrath ...
The Ordinary People are looking towards the SC like Hawks and CJ's credibility is also on stakes ....

That will be a desirable option but truth is that we have Nawaz Sharif and others benefitted from the SC verdicts due to lack of evidence etc. In order to maintain balance, there will be no significant action. Some people will resign and some will be punished BUT the big fishes will go free.

 

[Bane Blade]

Nawaz Sharif and all others should be put to trial let us not forget that at the moment everyone is throwing mud and the media is taking photos so I am sure that it will put a lasting effect on the politics of our country frankly speaking watching off the record today I think Imran Khan is benefiting the most atleast within educated circles if he can get a good campaign going then he is all set for success, lets keep upbeat and I am sure that politics will sort itself out.

 

[ajpirzada]

'Who the NRO beneficiaries are?'
QAMAR UZ ZAMAN
ISLAMABAD (December 08 2009): On the first day of hearing on challenges to National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) - the amnesty deal that has shielded the President, federal ministers and several senior serving officials from corruption charges - the Supreme Court called for an authentic list of its beneficiaries from National Accountability Bureau (NAB). Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observed. "We want to know who the beneficiaries are, and the exact amount of benefit they received in terms of money."

The Chief Justice also hinted that "we may ask the Attorney General to produce proceedings of the assembly, as a house of 342 members did not vote for the ordinance. "Perhaps, the general public is not among the beneficiaries," observed Justice Sair Ali.

The court directed NAB representative Baseer Qureshi to submit the record while emphasising the need for its authenticity.

A 17-judge bench started the hearing of a petition filed by Dr Mubashir Hassan, who was represented by advocate Salman Akram Raja. At the onset of proceedings, acting Attorney General Shah Khawar appeared before the court and submitted a brief written statement, arguing that since the NRO belonged to the previous regime, therefore, the Federation would not defend it.

Khawar pointed out that Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani had reiterated that the 17th amendment was not valid and in this respect, he had constituted a committee to review it, adding, "we strongly believe in the supremacy of the 1973 Constitution." The Chief Justice pointed him out that the matter regarding 17th amendment was not before the court, and questioned why the acting Attorney general was presenting these statements before the court.

"And tell us about your stance regarding the NRO," the CJ added. Replying to the observation of the court, Shah Khawar said: "we are not going to defend it." Meanwhile, representatives of the provinces (Advocate Generals) also followed his footsteps, and said they would not defend the NRO.

Advocate Salman contended that the word national reconciliation had been misinterpreted as the ordinance was meant for selection of individuals that would be given the benefit. Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday promptly remarked that the ordinance was "national reconciliation with corruption and crimes."

He said that the motive of reconciliation was to create a single nation by creating loyalty among those who refused authority of the state. "Termination of cases is not a way to create reconciliation among the holders of public office," he observed.

He read out section 2 of the ordinance regarding creation of Review Board "to review the entire record of the case and furnish recommendations as to their withdrawal or otherwise," and said that judicial powers had been entrusted to an executive body which was not constitutional.

Present in the court was the then Attorney General Malik Qayyum, who informed the court that in accordance with the ordinance there was one review board each for the provinces and one for the Federation. Salman referred to a news item regarding issuance of a notification by the Sindh government that Review Board was constituted on October 8, 2007.

On October 11, 2007, the board recommended withdrawal of 351 cases, out of which 144 were murder cases. The next day (October 12, 2007), the board decided 158 additional cases. Recommendation of the boards was binding on the courts, he added. "Perhaps the board members were very competent in that they decided so many cases in a single day," remarked the Chief Justice. Raja further read out section 7 of the ordinance, and said that it offered a clean chit for four types of public office-holders:

-- Investigations were pending and for which trial had not started.

-- Trial was pending but there was no conviction.

-- Those who were convicted but had merely filed an appeal.

-- Those who were acquitted and appeals against their acquittal were pending. There was no possibility of conviction in presence of this particular section, he added. He said that in presence of section 7, article 63 (Disqualifications for membership of Parliament) of the Constitution becomes irrelevant. "Who are those persons for whom doors of the parliament were opened under the garb of the ordinance?" questioned the Chief Justice.

Salman referred to Musharraf's statement dated October 27, 2009 (New York) that he promulgated the ordinance for just one politician. "Thus the intent of the ordinance is not reconciliation," he added. At the end of the proceedings, the Chief Justice observed that discussion over the subject should not be held on the electronic media, however, the print media was allowed to publish the proceedings of the case.

The court adjourned the matter for Tuesday when advocate Salman would conclude his arguments. It is to be noted that the court had appointed former Judge of Sindh High Court Shaiq Usmani, advocate of Supreme Court and former Chief Justice of Lahore High Court Mian Allah Nawaz, and former Attorney General for Pakistan M. Sardar Khan as amicus curiae to assist the 17-member bench.

Business Recorder [Pakistan's First Financial Daily]

---------- Post added at 01:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 AM ----------

why not rename this thread to NRO or NRO proceedings

 

[ajpirzada]

SC seeks details of NRO beneficiaries




Tuesday, December 08, 2009
CJ observes ordinance discriminatory; govt refuses to defend ordinance; TV channels barred from conducting talk shows on NRO

By Sohail Khan

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to submit before it authentic details of the beneficiaries of the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO).

The apex court directed the NAB chairman to provide a complete list of the people, who were financially benefited under the infamous ordinance.“The court should be provided name of a person who even managed to get benefit of Rs 5,” Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry remarked while heading a full court, hearing constitutional petitions, challenging the NRO.

Former federal minister Mubashar Hassan, retired bureaucrat Roedad Khan and Jamaat-e-Islami’s former chief Qazi Hussain Ahmed had challenged the NRO in the apex court in 2007. When the court resumed hearing in the case, the federal and all four provincial governments refused to defend the NRO before the apex court.

Acting Attorney General Shah Khawar submitted before the court that the Federation of Pakistan reiterates as repeatedly stated by Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani that the 17th Amendment is not valid, inasmuch as it violates the basic features of the Constitution. He informed the court that a parliamentary committee of both the houses of parliament is in the process of preparing its recommendations. He further submitted that the Federation believes in the supremacy of the Constitution of 1973 and parliament.

The Supreme Court observed the issue being heard is not that of the 17th Amendment, rather, it is the NRO. The acting attorney general said the National Reconciliation Ordinance 2007 was promulgated by the previous regime, and he is under instructions not to defend it.

During the course of the proceedings, the advocates general of the four provinces and the NAB prosecutor said they would not defend the ordinance either. The court also directed to submit the details of the deliberations of the Parliamentary Committee on the NRO as well as the fate of discussion in parliament on the subject.

The full court enquired as to whether the issue of the NRO is still the property of parliament and directed to submit full details before the court in this regard, particularly the speech made by the prime minister regarding the NRO, and its effects and its copies should also be provided to the counsel of the petitioners as well.

Meanwhile, Salman Raja, counsel for Dr Mubashar Hassan, while arguing before the court, submitted that in order to make the electoral process look transparent, the so-called NRO was promulgated to facilitate the privileged class.

On the court query as to who were benefited from the ordinance, the learned counsel replied that government officials, politicians and the influential were protected in a particular time in their respective cases under the infamous ordinance. He submitted that the impugned ordinance was totally based on discrimination, giving legal cover to the corruption of the people.Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday asked the counsel whether murder cases also fall under Section 2 of the ordinance.

Salman Raja replied that about 144 cases of murder were eliminated under the ordinance, adding that details of these cases would be submitted before the court. He contended that there were four categories of the people, who benefited from the self-executed ordinance. He further told the court that Section 7 of the ordinance totally relates to the termination of the conviction of the accused persons.

Responding to a court query regarding the NAB authority to pursue cases abroad, the learned counsel replied that the state could request a particular state abroad for initiating proceedings against an accused person as per the law of that land.

However, Justice Ramday told the counsel that under Section 21 of the NAB Ordinance, the state could only make a request for freezing the accounts of an accused abroad but could not ask for trial.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, however, observed that under Section 33 of the NAB Ordinance, there are some other matters that could be requested by the state. The chief justice observed that the NRO being a discriminatory law violates the basic fundamental rights as the law benefited only a particular class.

The chief justice further observed that the infamous ordinance also violates articles 4, 5, 2-A and Article 25 of the Constitution. “How it is possible that an accused of crime is being put behind the bars while others got free,” the chief justice observed.

“The court would review the NRO under the 1973 Constitution,” the chief justice remarked and asked the counsels for the petitioner to tell the court about the NRO-facilitated politicians, for whom the doors of parliament were opened.

Meanwhile, the court directed to abstain from conducting talk shows on TV channels regarding the NRO. However, the court directed that TV channels and print media reporters could cover the court proceedings.

The court also admitted for regular hearing a petition of JI former chief Qazi Hussain Ahmed, who had filed an appeal in the apex court for the restoration of his petition, challenging the NRO.

Qazi’s petition was dismissed by the then Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar on February 28, 2008, for non-prosecution. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing for Tuesday (today) when Salman Raja would continue his arguments.

Other members of the full court include Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan, Justice Tasadduq Hussain Jillani, Justice Nasirul Mulk, Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, Justice Chaudhry Ijaz Ahmed, Justice Muhammad Sair Ali, Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain, Justice Rahmat Husain Jafferi, Justice Tariq Parvez and Justice Ghulam Rabbani.

SC seeks details of NRO beneficiaries

 

[SSGPA1]

Gen. Musharraf's response to NRO question:

What compelled you to promulgate the NRO?

I very much feel responsible for answering this question which is rightly agitating many minds. However because of certain political sensitivities, I will have to pend the answer for the time being with a promise that I will take the nation on board at the appropriate time. The one clarification that I will make is that I committed this mistake on the strong advice of the political leadership at that time who are now blatantly disowning connections with it. My interest was only national with absolutely no personal bias or agenda.

“Through the NRO you brought corrupt politicians to power and made Zardari the President.”

NRO may have allowed Asif Zardari or corrupt politicians to contest elections but it certainly was not the cause of their coming to power. NRO is not responsible for electing the PPP as the majority party or allowing Asif Zardari to win an election. NRO is not responsible for corrupt politicians sitting in Assemblies, or being appointed as Ministers. All this happened through the votes of the people of Pakistan. NRO is not responsible for all Parliamentarians of Provincial and National Assemblies and Senate having overwhelmingly voted for Asif Zardari as President. The nation has to learn to cast their votes for the right person and the right party.