ISLAMABAD: Firebrand leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Daniyal Aziz was convicted by the Supreme Court on Thursday of committing contempt and was sentenced to imprisonment “till the rising of the court”.

“Taking a lenient view of the matter, we convict him under Section 5 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 and sentence him to imprisonment till rising of the court today,” says the 17-page order read out by Justice Mushir Alam.

Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel had authored the report and Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed had headed the three-judge bench that heard the case. However, since both judges were not present, Justice Alam read out the verdict.

The former minister for privatisation had been charged with contempt of court for his jibes against the judiciary last year, which were published in Daily Dunya on Sept 9, 2017 and telecast by Neo TV on Dec 15, 2017 and by DawnNews on Dec 21, 2017.

Expert says verdict entails PML-N leader’s disqualification for five years; former minister says he expected an adverse judgement

When the case was called out at around 9:55am, Mr Aziz had not yet arrived. He walked in, visibly tense, a short while later, but when the verdict was announced at around 10:26am, he relaxed.

Apparently, Mr Aziz had been shaken because of media reports about the presence of an armoured personnel carrier (APC) in the parking lot of the Supreme Court, along with unusual police presence on the court premises.

Later while talking to the media, Mr Aziz said he had expected an adverse judgement, which was why he had filed the nomination papers of his father Chaudhry Anwar Aziz and another relative from his constituency, instead of contesting the election himself.

Though the judgement does not elaborate on the consequences of the conviction, legal observers believe that Mr Aziz stands disqualified from contesting elections for five years under Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The provision says: “A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen a member of the parliament if he has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for propagating any opinion or acting in any manner prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or the integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary or the armed forces of Pakistan.”

In the judgement, Justice Miankhel said that courts usually preferred to exercise judicial restraint in such matters, but the nature of the words spoken by Mr Aziz could not be deemed just or fair. He added that the suspect had repeatedly attacked the judiciary and one of the judges in particular.

A politician of such stature, with a large public following and access to social media, print media, and electronic media by way of addressing public gatherings or press conferences, was expected to carefully select the words they spoke, the order said. If Mr Aziz had passed comments about the general working of the court in good faith and in the public interest and in temperate language, without impugning the integrity or impartiality of a judge, Justice Miankhel observed, it would not amount to a contemptuous act.

Tallal Chaudhry’s case

Separately, a three-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Gulzar Ahmed, told senior counsel Kamran Murtaza, representing former minister of state for interior Muhammad Tallal Chaudhry, that the court would move on and start hearing arguments if the defence failed to produce the rest of its witnesses.

On Thursday, two more witnesses — Rickshaw Association president Atta Muhammad and Municipal Corporation councillor Jaranwala Imtiaz Khan — recorded their testimony in the contempt case against Mr Chaudhry.

The witnesses stated that they were present in the stadium on Jan 27, 2018 when former prime minister Nawaz Sharif visited Jaranwala to address a big public meeting there. They said they had not heard Mr Chaudhry say anything that could be construed as being anti-judiciary or contemptuous of the court.

Additional Attorney General Chaudhry Aamir Rehman, the prosecutor, asked whether both witnesses had heard Mr Chaudhry saying that PCO judges were sitting in the courts like idols in the Ka’aba and that they would never dispense justice and, therefore, Mian sahib should throw them away because they had insulted the judgement of the people’s court.

The witnesses said they had never heard Mr Chaudhry say that, and added that they were not aware that the speech had been telecast directly on electronic media.

Earlier, the judiciary had ignored the request of the counsel to show restraint. “We tend to make mistakes and indulge in loose talk but the court always shows restraint,” said the counsel, before requesting the court to adjourn proceedings till after the general elections.

Justice Ahmed responded by saying that the accused were people who could multi-task and handle several things at the same time. The court then adjourned the case till July 9.

Published in Dawn, June 29th, 2018