The Supreme Court will exhibit today (Wednesday) the documentary evidence submitted by Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq, being a prosecutor, to establish that Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani committed contempt by flouting the court orders passed in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) case’ judgement and afterwards.
A seven-member special bench headed by Justice Nasirul Mulk and comprising Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Muhammad Ather Saeed, will examine the authenticity of the documentary evidence in the open court. The attorney general and a deputy attorney general will appear before the bench on notice.
Earlier on February 13, the Supreme Court had indicted the prime minister for contempt of court, after he had pleaded not guilty to the charge. In its charge sheet against Gilani, the court had declared that the prime minister had willfully flouted, disregarded and disobeyed the Supreme Court orders, passed in the NRO case, for writing a letter to the foreign authorities to revive money laundering cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.
On February 16, the attorney general, who is acting as prosecutor, had submitted in the Supreme Court a 469-page documentary evidence to prove that Gilani had committed contempt by flouting the court’s December 16, 2009 judgement and its consequent orders in the NRO case.
The documentary evidence contained 43 documents/points to establish that Gilani had repeatedly flouted the court orders and committed contempt. All the courts’ orders passed in the NRO judgement and later in the NRO implementation case were also submitted in the documentary evidences. However, no exclusive document had been submitted.
Barrister Aitzaz Ahsen, counsel for Gilani, is likely to file the documents from the defence side today and a list of witnesses along with their statements in the case on February 27 and the court will regularly hear the case on February 28.
According to attorney general, there was no need to mention or produce witnesses in the apex court, as the evidence itself had the status of witnesses. He opined that a witness was not usually required when the case was of a civil nature. He said the proceedings of the NRO case were of civil in nature, but the court had directed him to act as a prosecutor under Order 27, Rule 7, of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, which was applicable in criminal contempt of court.
He explained that under Order 27, Rules 7, the law comes into action when the court or judges are ridiculed or proceedings are blocked intentionally. The attorney general is likely to contend before the bench today that his appointing to work as prosecutor was not applicable.
