SC adjourns the PM’s contempt of court hearing till March 7
ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court adjourned the contempt of court hearing against Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani till March 7 on Tuesday, DawnNews reported.
A seven-judge SC bench, headed by Justice Nasirul Mulk was hearing the case.
The head of the bench, Justice Nasirul Mulk said that the notice was sent to PM on the official basis but not on the individual terms.
The counsel of prime minister, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan said referring to the various arguments on appeal that he wanted to present evidences and witnesses and that a chance should be granted to him to examine them.
Aitzaz Ahsan argued that the notices were sent to the Federal government instead of sending it to prime minister.
He said that his client has done the same which should have been done according to the terms and regulations.
Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan requested the court to summon law and defence secretaries and former law minister Babar Awan to record their statements as court witnesses.
Babar Awan won’t come:
Babar Awan would not appear before the apex court as a witness because he had already argued in the NRO review petition filed by Law Secretary Masood Chishti, a source close to Mr Awan said. “The relevant rules (The Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973) bar a lawyer from appearing as a witness before a court where he has already argued the same case as a lawyer,” the source added.
The court gave the permission to present Cabinet and Defence Secretary Nargis Sethi as a witness in the court.
Earlier, on Feb 16, Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq had submitted evidence relating to the contempt of court against the prime minister.
It contained 43 documents (469 pages in four volumes) mainly consisting of different court orders — Dec 16, 2010, NRO verdict, Nov 25, 2011, SC judgments in the NRO review petition and NRO implementation case from May 24, 2010, to Feb 16, 2012, in Ahmed Riaz Sheikh and Adnan A. Khawaja cases.
Also, on Feb 27, Barrister Ahsan, in his three-page miscellaneous application requested the court to direct the law secretary to produce May 21, 2010, and Sept 21, 2010, summaries on the basis of which the prime minister had decided not to write a letter to the Swiss authorities for reopening $60 million money laundering cases.
He also sought a court direction for the law secretary to produce the orders issued by the accused prime minister on these summaries.