 The infamous NRO has proven to be far from fostering mutual trust and confidence amongst holders of public office and removing vestiges of political vendetta and victimisation. This piece attempts to wade through the swamp. When President Asif Ali Zardari and PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif met in Islamabad late in October in what was being billed as a new turn in PPP-PML-N relations, they did not utter a single word about the NRO, or at least that is what the PML-N spokesman Raja Zafarul Haq revealed. Did that mean the President was hardly bothered about the NRO or was it that Nawaz Sharif, despite his harsh pronouncements about the infamous ordinance, did not wish to vitiate the atmosphere by mentioning the three-letter word?
But events are playing out rather differently outside the presidential palace. The NRO question has popped up again. And, amusingly, now more people want to benefit from it. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry made an interesting comment when he observed that prisoners awaiting death sentences had started approaching the judiciary for getting relief under the NRO, which was a serious matter before the court. The chief justice, while heading a three-member bench hearing an application of a former DSP seeking relief under the NRO, said that he was receiving letters from prisoners awaiting death sentences.
Muhammad Baqir, a former DSP, had filed an application in the apex court and sought relief under the NRO. The chief justice said the prisoners had informed him that lots of prisoners were given relief under the NRO, therefore they should be given relief as well. The NRO was bequeathed upon some selected citizens of Pakistan by former President Pervez Musharraf just a few days before Benazir returned home in October 2007. It purported to promote national reconciliation, foster mutual trust and confidence amongst holders of public office and remove the vestiges of political vendetta and victimisation.
Under the NRO, the Criminal Code of Procedure was amended to withdraw all cases filed by the government between Jan 1, 1986 and Oct 12, 1999 - on the condition that a review board would determine if political reasons and victimisation were involved. As a result, many politicians benefited, including Mr. Asif Ali Zardari.
If the NRO were scrapped today, would it negatively impact Mr. Zardari? Legally speaking Article 248 of the constitution of Pakistan gives him presidential immunity. The article states that ‘No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or a Governor in any court during his term of office.'
Therefore, it must be this level of confidence that emboldened the government to table the controversial NRO before the parliament. This was done in light of the July 31 verdict of the Supreme Court of Pakistan wherein the court had directed the government to table some 37 ordinances promulgated by former president Pervez Musharraf during his tenure following the November 3 emergency. However, both the sessions of the National Assembly and Senate were prorogued without any debate or discussion on the NRO and it was referred to the Parliamentary Committee on Law and Justice.
On October 30, the Committee met and cleared the National Reconciliation Bill for tabling in the lower house. The majority of the 17-member committee had adopted the NRO bill of 2009 with some amendments.
According to insiders, PML-N and PML-Q lawmakers put up a stiff resistance to the clause-by-clause adoption of the bill after it was decided to remove Clause 4 and 5, binding police to get permission from parliament's committee before arresting any lawmaker. The bill's seventh clause was also amended, necessitating all accused to get themselves acquitted through courts.
Pakistan Muslim League (Q) leader Ch. Pervaiz Elahi had earlier demanded of the government to bring before the house names of all those who had benefited from the NRO. Ch. Pervaiz Elahi said that his party would vote against the NRO in parliament and at all other available fora. The once die-hard Musharraf supporter, who had declared that he would have the general elected again and again in uniform, said his party had derived no benefit from the NRO since that it was against the country's interests and was promulgated in a specific scenario.
Nawaz Sharif too had come down hard on the tabling of the NRO and had said parliament must not approve it because its endorsement would disgrace the legislature and its members. He said the political parties "must not fail in this vital test because it amounts to legalising corruption and cronyism" and that the parliament should not be used for legitimising corruption because it would set a disastrous precedent and destroy the politicians' credibility. "If approved, the ordinance will tarnish the country's image," he had warned.
When the committee cleared the bill on October 30 for tabling in the lower house of parliament PML-Q's Amir Muqam who was attending the meeting, staged a walkout against what he called the government's refusal to identify people who had benefited under the NRO and their party affiliations.
He said: "I told the committee that NRO was promulgated after an agreement between PPP's Benazir Bhutto and former president Gen (retd.) Pervez Musharraf under which the former was to become prime minister and the latter to remain president for five years, but it became void after the death of the PPP chairperson."
The stage is now set for President Zardari to find a face-saving way out on the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) in the next session of the parliament, though some say it could turn out to be a difficult proposition considering the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party lacks political support on the issue in the legislature.
Top legal brains differ on the fate and handling of the NRO that saved President Asif Zardari and several others from various corruption and criminal cases in and outside the country. Some legal eagles say the NRO has lapsed and the transactions that took place under it were a past and closed affair, and that there was no need to present it in parliament for approval.
However, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Dr. Babar Awan asserts that the NRO should be brought before the legislature to close the issue once and for all. His view is that the NRO will carry tremendous weight and bearing after having earned parliamentary sanction and that the detractors of President Zardari, who want to fling ire and mud on him on account of this law, would get the final opportunity to do so.
Minister of State for Law, Afzal Sindhu disagrees with the view that the NRO had lapsed. He says had it been so, it would not have given ‘indemnity' in the Nov 3, 2007 proclamation by Pervez Musharraf, which the apex court declared unconstitutional on July 31. He said the NRO was included in the 37 ordinances that were extended by the Supreme Court by 120 days each, as provided in the Constitution so that the government could get the time to decide about their fate. However, Sindhu said the past and closed transactions under the NRO could not be reopened. He referred to Article 264(e) of the Constitution to substantiate his point.
The provision reads: "Where a law is repealed, or is deemed to have been repealed, by, under, or by virtue of the Constitution, the repeal shall not, except as otherwise provided in the Constitution, affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if the law had not been repealed."
The review boards that were formed under the NRO, after scrutiny, sent the cases to the courts concerned, which acquitted the persons involved in different cases specified in the NRO. The NRO had amended Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which provided that all criminal cases registered between Jan 1, 1986 and Oct 12, 1999 would be examined by the Review Boards formed at federal and provincial levels. The cases found to be false and politically motivated by the boards were recommended for withdrawal by the government.
So, is the NRO a bitter pill that the nation must swallow and allow it to seep into the system with all its ramifications - or should it be safely kept in the medicine cabinet for emergency use? 
|
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
