Daily Times

National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) case has become a double-edged sword for the PPP government. In addition to facing the ire of the Supreme Court (SC) for not implementing its verdict on NRO passed in December 2009, the government has had to face embarrassment at the hands of the counsels it appointed to represent it before the SC. Last year, former attorney general, Anwar Mansoor Khan, resigned after making the awkward statement that the law ministry was not cooperating with him. Recently, Kamal Azfar, who was appointed the counsel in NRO review for a brief period last year, conveyed his impression to the SC bench hearing the case that the government did not want to allow the case to proceed and is indulging is delaying tactics by changing its counsel. The government had requested the SC to accept Dr Khalid Ranjha as the new counsel, because Latif Khosa who had succeeded Kamal Azfar in October last year following the latter’s appointment as advisor to the prime minister on disaster management, was made governor of Punjab in January this year. The government’s complaint against Kamal Azfar is that instead of informing the court that he no longer represented the government, he had appeared before it. In reaction, the government has requested the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) to take action against Azfar for overstepping his brief. Not surprisingly, the PBC is reluctant to get involved in an obvious case of vengeance. Kamal Azfar has also reported being harassed by a lawyer close to the government, which has evoked stern rebuke by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Asma Jahangir, who has vowed to stand by a member of the association.

NRO has all along remained a very sticky issue for the government because some of its beneficiaries, including President Asif Ali Zardari, are occupying high positions. NRO was the result of a political deal between General Musharraf who was looking for the support of a mainstream political party to legitimise his extension in power, while Benazir Bhutto saw this as an opportunity to get rid of all the politically motivated cases against her, her family and other PPP members. The SC has struck down that deal, declaring it discriminatory. Since handing down the verdict, the SC has been insisting on reopening of Swiss cases, which were closed on the request of the Pakistan government. The government refused to do so on the plea that the Swiss authorities have already declared they would not do so. This has irked the SC and it has come to think that the government is indulging in delaying tactics. Therefore, in a very strict interpretation of SC rules, it maintained the government cannot change its lawyer in the review petition. It has asked the attorney general and deputy attorney general, who have already once appeared before the court, to represent the government.

Part of the blame lies with the government, as it has failed to appoint persons suitable for defending its case. Kamal Azfar was considered close to the PPP and was not expected to deviate from the brief given to him. Disappointed, the government is indulging in harassment campaign against him, which is not justified under any circumstances. Why single out Kamal Azfar when other lawyers too have failed to deliver or deviated from their job.*