SC gives PPP leaders 15 days to clarify positions

0
166

ISLAMABAD – Chief Justice of Supreme Court Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry said on Friday that respecting the institutions would ensure strengthening of the system, as he allowed two provincial leaders of the Pakistan People’s Party facing contempt of court charges for allegedly ridiculing a court verdict to submit their replies in 15 days.
A three-member bench comprising Justice Iftikhar, Justice Muhammad Sair Ali and Justice Ghulam Rabbani ordered that the reply be submitted by the given date in the hearing of a suo motu case of the March 11 violence-plagued strike in Karachi and other parts of Sindh – in which five people were killed and scores of others injured – against an apex court verdict declaring the appointment of Justice (r) Syed Deedar Hussain Shah as National Accountability Bureau chairman illegal.
Appearing on notice, former senator and PPP Sindh General Secretary Taj Haider and the party’s Sindh Media-Cell Coordinator Sharjeel Inam Memon, who were issued contempt notices on March 26 under Article 204 of the constitution relating to contempt of court and Section 3 of the Contempt of the Court Ordinance 2003, told the court that they had received a 386-page notice of the court four days ago in which severe allegations were made against them, thus they required two months’ time to file their replies.
The court however declined their request for 60 days to file a reply and told them to submit their replies by April 15. The courtroom was packed to its capacity during the hearing as over 60 PPP MPAs from the Sindh Assembly, who reached the Supreme Court at about 7.40am, and other party workers were present at the courtroom in what seemed to be a bid to put pressure on the court. They said, however, that they had come to show solidarity with their colleagues.
Presidential Spokesman Farhatullah Babar also stayed at the court for quite some time. The chief justice addressed them during the hearing, saying, “You are public representatives and we all struggled for democracy together.” He said the case was not a personal matter but a matter of the court’s prestige. He said if public representatives did not honour court verdicts, no one would. He stressed respect for the institutions, saying that it would ensure strengthening of the system.
He said that during his 21 years as a judge, he only gave out punishment in a single contempt case in Quetta. Justice Muhammad Sair Ali observed that contempt law was “the worst law” and the court often ignored it but sometimes it was compelled to issue contempt notices. The chief justice said that according to the latest information, three people had lost their lives while 12 people were injured in the strike in Karachi. “Have you compensated the citizens who have been greatly affected by the strike?” the chief justice asked Taj Haider.
Haider replied that the provincial government was taking measures to compensate the affected people. “We respect you and do hope you will persuade your youngsters (Sharjeel) to respect the rule of law and supremacy of the constitution,” the chief justice said. Supreme Court Bar Association President Asma Jehangir, who was assisting the court, said four people were killed in the protest strike in Sindh according to the Interior Ministry.
She said criminal cases registered in the incident should be investigated, adding that the Sindh government should identify the perpetrators of the violence besides compensating the heirs of the people who lost their lives. She said further that the provincial government should also compensate people whose properties had been damaged in the violence.
Senior lawyer Abdul Hafeez Pirzda submitted that he had been told by the Sindh chief minister to remain neutral in the case, therefore he would not be appearing as a counsel but as an officer of the apex court. Later, the court adjourned the hearing till April 15. Sindh Home Minister Dr Zulfiqar Mirza and PPP MPAs Nisar Khoro, Pir Mazharul Huque, Shazia Marri, Sassi Palejo, Ayaz Soomro, Agha Siraj Durrani and others were present in the courtroom.