LAHORE - The dismissal of the appeal filed by the prime minister against the February 2 order of the Supreme Court and the judicial commission’s move to take video link aid to record the statement of Mansoor Ijaz in the memogate scandal read with other cases of vital importance before the apex court appear to be drawing outlines of serious consequences for the ruling class. The case of Adiala Jail missing persons and contempt of court against Babar Awan are among others, which show that the judiciary has put its foot down to get the orders implemented. The contempt of court case, wherein the SC has summoned the prime minister for indictment on February 13, and the memo issue relate to the high functionaries in the ruling class; some of them are, although, not directly before the judiciary but may not be free from the effects of its decisions.In memogate, the petitioners want to know the real architect of what they say a conspiracy hatched against the armed forces and nuclear assets of the country and have in the back of their minds that it may not be other than the highest office holder in the country.The judicial commission activated the proceedings to a new height on Friday by ordering to get the statement of Mansoor, the pivotal character in the Memogate, recorded through video link and send within two days the secretary to the commission to London for finalising the arrangements in this regard.In another relevant development, the deputy attorney general informed the commission that a request has been sent to the RIM, a Canadian company, to obtain the BlackBerry messages and e-mail records of the alleged contacts between Mansoor and Husain Haqqani.In the contempt of court matter, however, a case is ready for action although the Memogate commission has fixed February 22 for recording Mansoor’s statement. Jurists converge on one point that after dismissal of appeal, the prime minister has to appear before the seven-member bench of the Supreme Court on February 13 when the charges will be framed against him in terms of Article 204 of the Constitution after he failed to comply with the 17-member bench decision on the NRO case.They say the court would ask the prime minister whether or not he pleads guilty and proceed further if he does not plead guilty, which means, he believes that he did not committed any offence by not writing to the courts abroad for reopening the graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.Explaining the procedure, they say the court will not instantly conclude at conviction of the PM if he does not plead guilty and will provide him full opportunity to defend himself on basis of evidence, law and material relevant to the issue.Among the witnesses, it may be the law secretary and other officials concerned with advising and explaining to him on the legal and court matters. However, the jurists are divided on whether the onus or responsibility for not writing to the Swiss courts will also be shifted to his advisers and the officers or only they would take the brunt of for being actual culpable, given the fact that the prime minister performs duties seeking opinion from aides linked to his office.One section says before the court, the accused is the prime minister and it is his defence which will determine his fate.The jurists agree that the conviction in the contempt matter will not end the issue of writing to the Swiss courts as the bench, in fact, had initiated the proceedings to get the net effect of implementation of the NRO case to take to task those who failed to carry out the verdict.Former chief justice Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui says the court under the contempt law can convict up to six months jail or fine or both on the proven charges; however, the contemnor can challenge the conviction in appeal.In his opinion, the PM can explain his position after being indicted and it will be up to the court to entertain or not the same.According to Siddiqui, after what the PM’s counsel pleaded before the bench on Friday, he appears in a mood to fight the case instead of going for writing to the Swiss courts or tendering an apology.President SCBA Yasin Azad says the court is authorised to grant time to the premier if he seeks to implement the court order.In his view, the PM is likely to mainly rely on Article 248 of the Constitution which relates to Presidential Indemnity in defence; however, it may be up to the court to consider this provision or treat it as a closed subject after the issue was not raised previously.He says the court usually treats leniently if the contemnor acts upon the court order beforehand.In case of conviction, the prime minister will stay in the office as long he is not disqualified as member of the assembly by the CEC after receiving a reference from the speaker and a new chief executive has been nominated. Azad said in his view, the instant appeal should not have been filed.Former Law Minister Dr Khalid Ranjha says the issues already settled in the NRO case cannot be reopened in the contempt matter which is now between the court and the prime minister. He says the court may pardon the contemnor if he concedes to the implementation of the NRO case or it can also dole out punishment immediately after hearing him and finding his defence not satisfactory.Moreover, the court can also appoint the attorney general as prosecutor in the case.