PRIME Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani should be listening to the sound advice given by PML-N leader Mian Nawaz Sharif to end the run of self-contradictory and utterly meaningless observations he has been making about how his government views the Supreme Court judgment on the NRO. Mr Gilani asserts that as the President enjoys immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution, certain directives of the verdict pertaining to him could not be pursued in a court of law. Speaking in clear terms, Mian Nawaz has, however, maintained that despite the immunity provision, Mr Zardari ought to approach the apex court to get his name cleared, something that reputable legal opinion, political analysts as well as ordinary people in the country have all along been suggesting. Mian Nawaz added weight to his idea by saying that if he had been the President and had the immunity, he would have moved the court to clear his name. There is obviously quite a divergence between the perceptions of the PPP and the PML-N on the issue of the presidential immunity; it would, therefore, be difficult to agree with Mr Gilani that there is no rift between them. Mian Nawaz, who was talking to journalists at Peshawar on Friday, was also emphatic that the NRO decision should be respected 'without ifs and buts. His remark that the rule of law and Constitution should be strictly adhered to in order to let the democratic system flourish in the country is plain commonsense. However, one does not get the impression that the government intends going along with this view. The Prime Ministers plea, for instance, that the case against the President in the Swiss court cannot be reopened because he enjoys immunity, supports that impression. Mr Gilani somehow ignores the fact that the apex court specifically asked for its reopening. It is logical to assume that the government should have sought its clarification about whether the element of immunity covers the case before speaking on the subject. Nevertheless, an application challenging the provision of presidential immunity was filed in the court on Friday, and one expects that the question whether it is a blanket privilege or is subject to some conditions would be finally settled. Unfortunately, both the tone and the tenor of official utterances do not inspire confidence about smooth sailing, should the Supreme Court take a different view of the immunity clause from that of the government. Yet, one would like to hope that the judicial verdict would be taken as final and respected and the dreaded institutional confrontation is avoided.