ISLAMABAD, Sept 17: The Supreme Court reserved on Monday its ruling on Attorney General Irfan Qadir’s eligibility to prosecute property tycoon Malik Riaz of Bahria Town on contempt charges.

A two-judge bench comprising Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and Justice Ejaz Ahmed Chaudhry postponed the proceedings till Sept 20 to decide whether the attorney general could be allowed to prosecute Malik Riaz because he had represented the property magnate in the past.

On Saturday, the attorney general submitted to the apex court a list of witnesses, which included the name of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, in the Malik Riaz contempt case.

The names of Dr Arsalan Iftikhar, son of the chief justice, Supreme Court Registrar Dr Faqir Hussain, former prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Salman Ahmed, son-in-law of Malik Riaz, also figure in the list.

The attorney general always acts as a prosecutor in contempt of court cases.

Malik Riaz is facing contempt charges for levelling serious allegations against the chief justice at a press conference on June 12. He also raised three questions for the chief justice to answer.

At the outset of Monday’s proceedings, the AG contended that the judges had also appeared in the past but was told by the court that he was not supposed to defend the accused being a prosecutor in the case.

“It will be inappropriate for him (AG) to serve as prosecutor in the matter, especially when he has already been accused of having a biased attitude,” Justice Ejaz observed. He said the evidences submitted by the AG appeared to be defending the accused.

The AG said that Dr Arsalan had levelled allegations against him and insisted that in order to prove Malik Riaz wrong it was necessary that the chief justice appeared before the court as a prosecution witness. He said it was his right to prosecute the accused fairly.

“Being a principal law officer, you should remain in your own jurisdiction”, the court advised the AG.

Mr Qadir said he was an impartial law officer and was assisting the court in accordance with the law. Justice Ejaz said the court would examine whether or not the AG could serve as prosecutor in the matter.

Dr Abdul Basit, the counsel for Malik Riaz, opposed the court’s objection and said it could not change the prosecutor because the law barred any private person, other than the AG, from prosecuting an accused. He said that a number of lawyers sitting in the court had provided services to Malik Riaz, including Sardar Mohammad Ishaq who represented Dr Arsalan.

Therefore, Dr Basit said, this argument appeared to be irrelevant. He was of the opinion that the appearance of the chief justice would boost the dignity and respect of the court as was done by the prime minister in a contempt of court case.

If the chief justice chose not to appear as witness, the counsel said, his client should be freed of all accusations because the contempt case had begun as a result of Malk Riaz scandalising and levelling serious charges against Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry.