ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday nodded to a prayer of the counsel for Prime Minister in contempt of court issue by allowing Nargis Sethi, Secretary Cabinet/Defence Ministries, to appear as witness for his defence and record her statement on March 7.
A seven-member larger bench comprising Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Justice Sarmad Osmani, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Muhammad Athar Saeed resumed hearing of the contempt of court issue against the Prime Minister regarding implementation of NRO-verdict.
The bench disposed of his plea moved under Order 33, Rules 4-6 read with Section 94 and 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code for summoning of documents and witnesses.
The bench noted that relevant certified documents might also be filed on next date of hearing.
Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk, however, verbally told Aitzaz Ahsan that he could cross examine his witness during proceedings.
At the outset of proceedings, Aitzaz Ahsan told the bench that out of three witnesses mentioned in his application, two were reluctant to appear in their individual capacities.
To bench's query, he replied that his defence contained in his relevant documents and related to accounts of witnesses.
Putting up his initial arguments in favour of his defence, Aitzaz said that there was no intention or unwillingness on part of the accused to disobey any order of the court.
The accused acted strictly in accordance with Rules of Business and constitution which was held binding upon him by this Court, he added.
He contended there was no contumacy nor mens rea and the accused acted upon advice of experts so he committed no contempt of court.
To Justice Osmani's question, he replied that the experts in legal issues were the law minister and law secretary and not the PM House.
Aitzaz said that the Court had already passed restriction in cases where summaries were ignored.
He said the accused on September 23, 2010 had passed an order accepting an advice of the law minister and categorically mentioned that the issue should be brought in the notice of Supreme Court.
Responding to a bench's query, the counsel replied that the case was against the federal government while the accused had never been put to notice nor summoned.
He said that his defence would be put through two summaries and the functionaries upon whose advice the accused acted without malice.
Replying to another question, the counsel submitted that the case pertained to criminal nature in which the elected Prime Minister might go to jail, however, it would be a matter of debate whether he could remain as Prime Minister or not in jail.
He prayed to court to summon the witnesses who would be assisting him and the court to reach to a fair decision.
Reacting to a question of Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, the counsel questioned that in the absence of witnesses whom he would cross examine as nothing could be done in the air!
Disagreeing with bench's remark, he said that he was there in defence of contempt charges as it was a contempt bench and not of NRO implementation bench.
He prayed to bench to remain confined to contempt issue.
He agreed with the bench's contention that contents of the cited summaries should be taken as true.
To another question, he said that he was afraid that the bench did not know functions of the Prime Minister who had to go through over 40 summaries a day besides, looking into foreign affairs as well.
He contended that the Prime Minister had to perform multifarious functions in his capacity.
He also objected to bench's observations regarding production of witnesses and said that it would like restricting his right of defence.
Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk told him that they were not restricting his right of defence.
Copyright APP (Associated Press of Pakistan), 2012
Comments
Comments are closed.