'Denial' to National Assembly of Accountability Ordinance examination: President wilfully attempted to violate Constitution: petitioner

The Supreme Court on Monday was requested to declare the allegedly purposeful denial of opportunity to examine the National Accountability (Amendment) Ordinance 2010 to the National Assembly, as an attempt to violate the Constitution by President Asif Ali Zardari.
Shahid Orakzai moved an application wherein he contended that President Zardari had, once again, wilfully attempted to violate the Constitution and deliberately breached the powers and privileges of the National Assembly this month.
The apex court was asked to take note that the President had intentionally and purposely denied the National Assembly the specified opportunity to consider the National Accountability (Amendment) Ordinance despite the fact that the Opposition in that Assembly staged two walkouts after the Ordinance was laid before Senate in October last year.
The National Assembly held its last session from December 20, 2010 to January 7, 2011 but the said Ordinance was not laid before the Assembly until the period of 120 days, mentioned in Article 89, expired on January 14, 2010.
The petitioner pointed out that the National Assembly does have the powers to pass a resolution of disapproval against every Ordinance but such a resolution can be passed only after the Ordinance is formally laid on the table.
The petitioner emphasised that the President is duty bound to lay every such Ordinance before both Houses and the Attorney General may be asked as to what was the presidential reservation about laying the Ordinance before the House on whose majority it had been promulgated. The applicant stated the Constitution clearly draws a line between the powers and privileges of Parliament and that of its members and his application strictly concerns the powers and privileges of the National Assembly as a whole than any individual member thereof.
The court was informed that there was no privilege motion before the Assembly as yet with regard to the Ordinance but, in defending the Constitution, the Supreme Court shall not wait for any action to be taken by any other institution.
The court was reminded of its Order dated 2-12-2010 which had noted the Attorney General's assurance that the impugned Ordinance would be formally withdrawn by the competent authority.
The Attorney General later informed the court that the impugned Ordinance was before a Committee of Senate, which was examining the legal consequences of its possible withdrawal (in terms of Article 47) essentially in view of the pending petition. On January 6, 2011, the Attorney General had informed this court that the impugned Ordinance would lapse/expire on January 14 and the Federation may prefer its expiry than withdrawal.
The applicant said his stance about violation by the President has now been proven and the President could cause further injury to the Constitution. The case is fixed for hearing on January 27.