----- Tells Supreme Court he won't write letter
----- 'President cannot be thrown before any foreign magistrate'
In response to March 8 order, the PM submitted a 24-page statement on Monday stating that the President, being head of a sovereign state, had immunity in both criminal and civil jurisdictions of all other states under the international law. He said he believed that the immunity be absolute and inviolable, even though it persists only during the tenure of the office.
He said the immunity is vested in the office, not in the person and it represented the sovereignty and independence of a country as well as its sovereign equality with all other states, howsoever strong and powerful they may be. He said he thought it wrong to subject a constitutionally-elected incumbent President to the authority of a Magistrate in a foreign country. "I think this subjection should be avoided," he added.
Gilani, who was indicted on February 13 for contempt of court, after he had pleaded not guilty to the charge told the court that it had itself listed availability of six options in its January 10, 2012 order.
He said he was unable to understand why the most coercive option (option-1) had been selected by the court and for what reason. He said no justification appeared to have been provided for selecting that option. He urged the court to adopt the sixth option and leave the matter to the ultimate judges of his fate and reputation, who were the people of Pakistan. "As I submit to this court, so I will also, in the manner expressed by the court in the sixth option, surrender to the judgement of the people of Pakistan at the appropriate time according to the constitution. People are and must remain the highest worldly sovereign entity in this country. They are the judges of the last resort in this world. That will be the best course of action and also be according to the sixth option formulated by the court itself," Gilani said in his statement. He urged the court to recall its March 8, 2012 order, "which was ex-parte, adding that if nevertheless the court seeks to enforce Match 8, 2012 order, he reserves the right to expound his response thereto, as his response is to be submitted separately." He questioned how can the state of Pakistan surrender its incumbent President for trial before an Investigating Magistrate in another jurisdiction. He suggested that being a matter of grave public concern, the issue of writing the letter be sent to Parliament to take a decision as was wisely done in the case of the 18th Amendment concerning Articles relating to the appointments in higher judiciary and Parliamentary oversight.
He said the Mutual Assistance Request was already acted upon and finally concluded in 1998, and nothing remained to be done in that behalf. He said he had examined the recommendations sent to him by the law ministry over the issue of writing the letter and then, while following the rules of business, gave his advice. He said it was categorically stated in the recommendations that all cases abroad had been conclusively closed by the 'competent authority of the concerned country' and time for filing appeal (by the Canton of Geneva) had also lapsed. He said the recommendations were based on legal opinions, including those of the former Law Secretary (a former retired judge of a superior court) and a former Attorney General for Pakistan (a senior advocate) as well as other materials and documents from Switzerland.
He said as far as other directions in the NRO were concerned, all had been complied with and implemented. He said he acted on the advice expressed in the summary itself, thus he honestly and in all good faith accepted the proposal. A seven-member special bench will resume hearing in the contempt case on March 21.