By Ahmad Noorani
Saturday,February 11,2012

ISLAMABAD: “We are sorry, Mr Aitzaz Ahsan, were the words of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry which sunk the case of Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, and one could clearly read his face which had only one message: “I should not have appeared before the CJ, and thus I would have at least stood by my word not to appear before the chief justice in person.”

Aitzaz’s was down and out after losing the second case in a week’s time, and his face was clearly depicting the agony as he was once widely respected because of his role in the lawyers’ movement, and his image had taken a severe battering because he decided to plead a losing case of a leadership which has no moral legs to stand on. He sided with the immoral squad and that would hurt him.

When The News had published the story on February 7, 2012, headlined ‘Aitzaz ready for another U-turn, will appear before CJ’, he protested loudly in and outside the SC, but he himself has to be blamed for pushing his reputation down the drain.

Not just his image but his professional competence is also being questioned as his appeal has been judged by a majority of legal and constitutional experts as a piece of non-legal junk based on anything but points of law.

By writing the embarrassing sentences in his appeal, which spoke of restoration of the chief justice and his children, Aitzaz angered the bench, but he surprised the legal fraternity when he argued in support of NRO beneficiaries and said the Swiss corruption cases against President Zardari were baseless.

How could a lawyer who says the cases are baseless and had been closed in Swiss court then argue that the letter should not be written? What would the letter achieve if the cases were closed and dead? Why then he hesitates. Aitzaz in the SC never answered these questions.

The fact Aitzaz knows is that the Swiss investigation magistrate had convicted President Zardari on October 29, 2007, and President Zardari’s appeal against his conviction was also rejected by the ‘Swiss Court of Appeals’ on the basis of strong evidence on March 19, 2008.

At one point, when Aitzaz tried to praise prime minister by saying ‘PM appeared before the Supreme Court’, the chief justice said, “Prime Minister didn’t do anything pious; he had to do this. You know, Mr Aitzaz, even Hazrat Umar (RA) had to appear before the court, and he was given no concession. Do you know this, Mr Aitzaz?

What baffled many in the courtroom was that Aitzaz Friday rejected or simply ignored, the repeated opportunities given to him by the CJ and other honourable members of the bench to speak to the prime minister and try to convince him to find some way to implement the SC order and to get the country out of the present situation.

The chief justice and Justice Saqib Nisar repeatedly tried to convince Aitzaz that in the best interest of the country and its institutions, Aitzaz should contact the prime minister immediately and ‘convey to him our message’ that as chief executive of the country, he should hold high moral grounds and should find some way out to implement the apex court’s judgment.

However, Aitzaz stuck to his position that he was arguing on only about the ‘contempt issue’ and that ‘it was not his mandate to convince the prime minister’. On this, Justice Saqib Nisar again tried to convince Aitzaz asking him: “Aitzaz, we understand that it is not your mandate, but we are asking you, for God sake, go to the prime minister and ask him to give us some option or mechanism for implementation of an apex court judgment which has gained finality.’ Aitzaz again refused to play the role of a ‘fire-fighter’ between the institutions.

When the chief justice, finally, asked him the same thing for the last time, Aitzaz took it non-seriously again saying: “OK, give me 10 to 15 days for this.” On Aitzaz’s refusal, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja told him in straight words, “OK, Mr Aitzaz, just leave it. We have repeatedly asked one thing. We asked in the national interest, and there was no other interest in this. But if you don’t want to do it, just leave this here and continue with your arguments. We will give the judgment in accordance with the law and Constitution.”

Aitzaz did not forgive the media even on Friday and told the bench: “Even today, the media has written that I faced embarrassment which I don’t have. They wrote many things against me.”

While the chief justice repeatedly referred to President Zardari’s interview with Geo News anchor Hamid Mir in which the president had categorically stated that his party had decided not to implement the apex court judgment and not to write a letter to the Swiss authorities, the judges told Aitzaz in categorical terms by using the words: “The NRO judgment of the Supreme Court has to be, has to be, has to be implemented, Mr Aitzaz.”

Court gave Aitzaz as much time as he required and even at the end of his arguments, the chief justice asked him if he has anything more to present, Aitzaz finally conceded: “No, I have concluded my arguments.” It was a sad end for a bad case, handled by a sorry counsel who once was a hero. Where he stands now, he has to evaluate himself.

__________________
Giving up doesn't always mean you are weak … sometimes it means that you are strong enough to let go:)