After 23 hearings in eight months on a plea seeking contempt of court proceedings against President Asif Ali Zardari for defying Lahore High Court’s judgement in dual office case, an LHC bench on Wednesday was given a simple assurance that Presidency would not be used for political activities.
A full bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, held the 24th hearing on the petition moved by Munir Ahmad against the president for not relinquishing his political office in light of the verdict issued 20 months ago in 2011.

When the court sought a deadline from the federation’s counsel Wasim Sajjad regarding President Asif Ali Zardari’s quitting the headship of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), he said the president was not heading any political party at all.He said the PPP was just an ‘association’ and it was not functional as a political party. The party heading the ruling coalition is Pakistan People’s Party Parliamentarians (PPPP), which is being headed by Makhdoom Amin Faheem.The bench observed that it was not right for the president to have an association which had political agenda. The bench added that the question “whether a private political activity of president contravenes the court judgment” needs deliberation. Directing Waseem Sajjad to assist the court on this issue, the court put off the case until February 15.

At this, the bench observed that it was not correct for president to have an association which had political agenda. But, Waseem Sajjad pointed out that this question was not raised in this case. The bench observed that the question “whether a private political activity of president contravenes with the court judgment” needs deliberation. The court directed Waseem Sajjad to assist the court on aforesaid point after taking instructions from the president.
Earlier during hearing, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Irfan Qadir had requested the court to adjourn the hearing. The bench rejected the adjournment request and replied that the case was significant in nature and the hearing would carry on even if the AGP was not available to appear for the hearing. The bench will resume hearing on February 15.

Submitting a written reply of the federation, he however assured the court that the President House will not be used for any political activities. At this, the LHC chief justice said that the federation counsel’s pledge to stop political activities in the Presidency augured well.Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah inquired from the counsel whether the political activities would not be held only in Islamabad’s President House or in Karachi as well. Wasim replied that the President House was situated in Islamabad, while the rest of the abodes in other cities were just president’s residences.

Justice Mansoor inquired if the president was not the chief of the ruling party and if the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) which the president was heading was functional? The counsel said the president was not a chairman of the ruling PPPP, which was registered with the Election Commission.“Zardari is not the head of the Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarian. The party named in the case (PPPP) is headed by Makhdoom Amin Faheem,” he said. The president is co-chairman of the PPP instead which was not functional as a party and could only be called an association, he said. The PPP however might get functional in the upcoming elections, he added.

Referring to operative part of dual office judgment, Waseem pointed out that it deals with the use of Presidency for political meetings and political office enjoyed by the president. He contended that the matter had come to an end after the assurance that the Presidency would not be used for political purposes and the clarification that the president did not have any political office there.The bench observed that the president would not remain impartial when he supported one political party and opposed others in public meetings. Waseem said that the official role of the president was not controversial and the situation was not like that of Nawaz Sharif’s case. He maintained that the PPP was an association and its activities did not fall under political activities, legally.

The chief justice observed that president’s neutrality should be visible and no steps should be taken by any association led by him which favoured any political party. The counsel regretted that very often the media misquoted the president’s activities. “If some ministers called on the president at the President House, it would be reported as the PPP core committee meeting (which is not the fact),” he added.To another court query, the counsel asserted that president’s office was not ‘apolitical’ as he was recommended by a party for the term. He said that a political person could not be non-controversial figure and added that it was unreasonable to aim for that much neutrality, outside the domain of the constitution.

He said that a separate petition could be filed if president indulged in activities of the association (PPP), which were against the directions passed by the Supreme Court.During hearing, petitioner’s counsel AK Dogar rejected the written statement submitted by Wasim Sajjad and argued that federal government was delaying the matter intentionally by engaging the court into frivolous debate. He argued that President Zardari was wilfully disobeying the judicial orders, and the head of state had not undertaken in his written reply that he would leave the political office of PPP’ co-chairmanship. President was made party in the contempt petition as individual but no power of attorney had been filed on his behalf, he added.

At this, the bench observed that it was not correct for president to have an association which had political agenda. But, Waseem Sajjad pointed out that this question was not raised in this case. The bench observed that the question whether a private political activity of president violated the court judgment, needs deliberation. The court directed Waseem Sajjad to assist the court on aforesaid point after taking instructions from the president.
Earlier during hearing, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Irfan Qadir had requested the court to adjourn the hearing. The bench rejected the adjournment request and replied that the case was significant in nature and the hearing would carry on even if the AGP was not available to appear for the hearing. The bench will resume hearing on February 15.