SC reserves verdict on whether AG can prosecute Malik Riaz contempt case

SC decided to reserve verdict after seeing the list of witnesses provided by Malik Riaz.


Web Desk September 17, 2012

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court, adjourning the Malik Riaz contempt case till September 20, reserved its verdict on whether the attorney general can prosecute the case or not, reported Express News on Monday.

Speaking to the media after the hearing, Riaz’s lawyer Dr Abdul Basit said that according to the law, no private person other than the attorney general can prosecute the case, but after looking at the list of witnesses provided by his client, the Supreme Court decided to reserve a verdict.

On Saturday, the prosecution of Riaz had submitted a list of witnesses which included names of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, his son Arsalan Iftikhar and SC Registrar Faqeer Hussain.

Basit told the media that during the hearing, the court asked the attorney general if he had represented Riaz earlier in any case to which the attorney general replied in affirmative. The court then asked him if he could prosecute this case fairly, to which the attorney general said that it was his right to do so.

COMMENTS (6)

Aftab Kenneth Wilson | 11 years ago | Reply I think CJ should immediately resign and then stand in witness box. If found guilty then give an exemplary punishment to both father and son and if found innocent (which I sincerely not believe) then give him extension for further three years after his retirement in March 2013. If he thinks no one has any immunity then why have any soft corner for these judges who have always played with the constitution in favor of usurpers.
Mirza | 11 years ago | Reply

How many times it has to be obvious that generals, judges and their families are above constitution? The CJ must be a main witness as his son was running his business from father's official residence. If a scam or illegal activities are taking place in his own official residence how could he not be brought to the court? In addition, the CJ made himself clear that his poor homeless son is an honest man, when he made this statement in the court. If that is not perjury and protecting a family member then what is? In fact in any other country the CJ would have been brought before the parliament or judiciary council and interrogated but it is Pakistan where there is no appeal against the CJ.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ