A 17-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry allowed Federation's plea, seeking review of its December 16, 2009 verdict which is to be fixed for hearing by its Registrar office after the due procedure. Kamal Azfar, the counsel for the federation, filed the rectified version of the petition while adding some new points to its petition. He said he had already removed objections placed on certain paragraphs of civil review plea and would now represent his client, instead of Muhammad Massod Chishti advocate.
The Supreme Court had failed to take note of the preamble to the NRO which makes it abundantly clear that the purpose of the NRO through its various sections was to promote national reconciliation and that desired purpose was successfully achieved. Similarly, the court also did not take into consideration the peculiar circumstances, under which the NRO was promulgated to ensure the restoration of democracy after many years of the rule of a military dictator who perpetuated his rule by forcing leaders of the main political parties of Pakistan ie PPP and PML-N in exile along with the dictator's crude attack on judiciary, said the petition.
It said that the court erred in paras 45 to 48 (of detailed judgement) in holding that the NRO 2007 was not promulgated for "National Reconciliation" but for achieving the objectives which have absolutely no nexus with national reconciliation because the nation of Pakistan as a whole has not derived any benefit from the same and in describing it as a deal and individual reconciliation, is factually incorrect.
The following are some other points raised by the federation for the review of NRO decision: "That nearly all the major political parties benefited from the NRO, which in fact helped to heal the nation's wounds to move towards democracy which we have in place today, it added.
"That admittedly the NRO was past and closed transaction and it was a dead piece of legislation when it was taken up for discussion during the proceedings of the instant case. If the court intended to travel outside the parameters of the prayers which the Federation had conceded to, it would have been just to grant the reasonable request of the Federation which was filed by the Counsel specifically stating that: "If however this Hon'ble court wishes to rule upon wider issues other than those raised in the petition in that case, the Federation requests that petitions be field precisely stipulating these issues whereupon the Federation will seek instructions on such new petitions".
The judgement had widely discussed Islamic Injunctions without necessary assistance from a scholar of Islam. The two jurists judges well versed in Islamic Law (Members) had already vacated Supreme Court and the exercise was undertaken without the appointment of jurist members. The interpretation of injunctions of Islam with respect to a case essentially political scope in itself shows that relevant facts were not taken into account.
"That in Zafar Ali Shah Case, PLD 2000, SC 860 which still holds the field, when filed, the Constitution was held in abeyance but then Supreme Court judges had not walked away from peculiar circumstances but had validated rule of General Musharraf, this important point has been ignored/ overlooked in the instant case.
"The court has erred in para No 112 in holding the NRO violative of Article 4 & 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The NRO provided a reasonable classification based on political victimisation and this was not arbitrary. Such practices are known in democratic countries in order to come out of ultra constitutional rules and this process of reconciliation and truth also took place in South Africa.
"That under the constitutional scheme of Pakistan which provides tracheotomy of powers, the promulgation of NRO was well within the framework of the constitution. "In this regard reference is made to the case reported as Sindh High Court Bar Association Vs. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2009 SC-879 judgement vide which the Supreme Court extended time of the Ordinances whereas such function of extension of the time is exclusively in the domain of the President/ Parliament.
"That this Hon'ble Court in its 31st July 2009 judgement gave the legislature 4 months to pass the NRO into law, that by making this decision this Hon'ble Court accepted that the NRO was legally promulgated by the President under the Constitution.
"That under Article 89 of the Constitution, the NRO stood repealed on 4th February 2008 or at the least on 1st August 2009 as this Hon'ble Court had no power to extend an Ordinance promulgated under Article 89 under the Constitution and as such under Article 264 all benefits acquired under the NRO before 4th November, 2009 or 1st August 2009 at the latest stood protected.
"That this Hon'ble Court in its judgement failed to appreciate the background of political victimisation stemming from Ehtesab Act, 1997 which was later on converted into the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 which were both used as tools of political victimisation.
"That in para 178 of the detailed judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court has erred in ordering the Federal Government and other concerned authorities to seek revival of the said requests, claims and status contrary to the principles of international law in foreign countries."