ISLAMABAD Counsel for the Federation Kamal Azfar Advocate on Monday submitted before the Supreme Court that Government feared CIA and GHQ could derail democracy in the country. During the hearing of a number of identical petitions against the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry enquired of the counsel for Federation as to which kind of threat the government feared as a result of the Supreme Courts prospective judgement in the case. The Chief Justice had asked the question in connection with an application filed by the Federation through Kamal Azfar Advocate wherein the SC was requested to confine its judgement to the prayer in Dr Mubashar Hassans petition against the NRO. The application further stated that the country was poised at the crossroads; one leading to a truly federal democratic welfare state while the other was leading to destabilisation of the rule of law, ending with the sentence that the nation was awaiting the courts verdict. Kamal Azfar Advocate replied that government feared threat from CIA and GHQ. However, when directed by the Chief Justice to submit the statement in written, he said that it was his personal opinion. The Chief Justice also enquired of him as to who had instructed him for inserting such paragraphs in the application, to which Kamal Azfar said that he had himself inserted the said paragraphs in the application and no government authority had instructed him to do so. The Chief Justice then directed Secretary Law to elaborate the contents of the application before the court today (Tuesday). The Chief Justice while expressing utter displeasure over the said application remarked if government feared November 3, 2007 like situation, then it should intimate the court so that it could pass immediate stay order. We are here for the rule of law and would not tolerate such allegations, the Chief Justice remarked. Acting Attorney General Shah Khawar, however, stood and said that Government had full confidence in the court and would implement its verdict, whatever it might be, in letter and spirit. He said that he would inform the court on Federations stance regarding the abovementioned application today (Tuesday). Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday asked Azfar to explain which one road would leading to prosperity and which one would lead to destruction and destabilisation of democracy. He also warned him to consult his client prior to appearing before the court. He also remarked that a lawyer had to represent his client and had no personal capacity in the court. Kamal Azfar also submitted that the Federation only requested the court not to strike down the 17th Amendment as a whole, to which the Chief Justice remarked that the court was not discussing the said amendment in the case in hand. On Monday, Chairman NAB presented report on the status of the cases instituted in the Swiss courts against Shaheed Benazir Bhutto and her spouse Asif Ali Zardari. The court, however, directed him to submit today (Tuesday) documents supporting his report. Chairman NAB also stated Rs 2 billion have been incurred on prosecuting cases against the couple in Swiss banks since the inception of the Bureau. A K Dogar Advocate, counsel for Feroz Shah Jilani, submitted that there was no emergency like situation at the time of promulgation of the NRO. He said that the NRO never existed from its very beginning. He also stated the Supreme Court had no authority to extend lifetime of an ordinance, as, he said, it did in its July 31st judgement. Advocate Shahid Orakzai submitted that Ordinances were issued on behalf of majority members in the National Assembly, which, he said, implied that an ordinance lapsed with the dissolution of NA. Therefore, the NRO lived for only one month, he added. He further stated that Article 70 of the Constitution provided for legislating over only one matter either in the Federal Legislative List or in the Concurrent List, while the NRO amended four existent laws belonging to both lists. He prayed to the court to pass a judgement to prevent in future laws promulgated by a single person.