LAHORE - A full bench of the Lahore High Court Friday disposed of contempt case against President Asif Ali Zardari when it was informed he had resigned from the political office of PPP co-chairman.
The bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial has also been assured by the federal government the President House will also not be used for political activities in future.
The court was moved on the issue of dual office of the president in June 2012 and the high court decided it in 11 months after conducting at least 26 hearings.
Petitioner Munir Ahmed had sought contempt proceedings against the president, claiming he had neither disassociated himself from political office nor discontinued holding PPP meetings at the President House.
On Friday, federation’s counsel Waseem Sajjad and Attorney General of Pakistan Irfan Qadir appeared before the bench. Waseem presented a certificate from the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and submitted that PPP intra-party elections were held on March 21 at Islamabad wherein Sardar Latif Khan Khosa was elected secretary general and Barrister Masood Kausar information secretary.
He also informed the bench that Bilawal Bhutto Zardari was patron-in-chief of the PPP whereas President Zardari was not holding any office in the party now. He said that he had already submitted that no political meetings would be held in the presidency. The expectations expressed in the dual office case verdict issued on May 12, 2011 had been fulfilled and the matter was closed, he argued and requested the bench to dispose of the contempt petition.
The chief justice observed that the highest state functionary had taken steps to comply with the judgment which established the supremacy of law. These were things which were expected from men and women of such stature, he remarked.
He further observed that his colleagues had similar sentiments and after the statement by Wasim Sajjad, there was no need to continue the proceedings. The court expressed the hope that the president would be non-partisan in future. Replying to apprehensions expressed by the petitioner’s counsel regarding the statement of the federation, the bench noted that he could approach the court again if the order was not implemented.