Pakistan Supreme Court took a bold step in 2010 challenging presidential immunity

granted under the Pakistan Constitution and laws. The state grants immunity so that the
president can discharge state duties without threats of civil litigation and criminal
prosecution. One such case was against President Zardari and his wife Benazir Bhutto.
The case involves Swiss companies who paid commissions to Zardari to get projects
while Bhutto was the Prime Minister. In 1997, Pakistan requested the Swiss authorities
to help in civil suit against the Zardari. The Swiss court ruled against Zardari and
ordered them to return the laundered money to Pakistan. The couple appealed against
the verdict. While the appeal was pending, General Musharraf, entered into an
agreement with Bhutto under National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), the Swiss case
against the Bhutto-Zardari couple was withdrawn. After the general elections, Zardari
replaced Musharraf as the President of Pakistan.
In 2009, the Pakistan Supreme Court, with decision of 17 Justices, declared the NRO
unconstitutional. Consequently, the Swiss case halted under the NRO was revived. The
Court ordered the Prime Minister, to send a letter to the Swiss authorities to reopen the
case for final resolution. The Prime Minister, refused to write the letter arguing that the
President enjoys immunity under the Constitution. The Supreme Court convicted the
Prime Minster for refusing to obey the Court order and detained him for less than a
minute which made him unqualified to be a member of the parliament.
Under Article 248 of constitution
the president is not answerable to any court for any act performed in the exercise of
presidential powers. The president is immune from criminal proceedings, arrest
warrants, and imprisonment. The president also enjoys limited immunity in civil
lawsuits. A civil lawsuit, however, may be instituted against the president 60 days after a
notice in writing, containing the particulars of the case, has been delivered to the
president. Since the Swiss case is "civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the
president," presidential immunity is constitutionally unavailable six months after
serving the required notice.
This led to serious debate whether the president is entitled to immunity in the Swiss
case. the government claims that the Executive and the Parliament, the institutions of
elected representatives of the people, decide the question of presidential immunity. The
Supreme Court, ordered government to write the letter without deciding on the
entitlement to immunity.
Only court had the power of judicial review to strike down executive orders and statutes
that the parliament passes. Under constitution parliament and government comes under
law. Since the Pakistan Supreme Court is the final authority in interpreting the
Constitution, its decisions are binding on the government. If the president or his ruling
political party were to exercise the final authority to determine presidential immunity,

the executive abuse of power would be unchecked. However in April 2010, Swiss
attorney general Daniel Zappelli had stated that Zardari as President enjoyed immunity
under international law, Swiss courts could not entertain any request to reopen the cases
against him. Nawaz sharif after joining the office contacted swiss authorities to reopen
the case but they refused saying time have passed now.