Contempt hearing: Court questions reasons for placing Ayyan back on ECL

Model's name has again been placed on the list despite earlier court order


Our Correspondent May 04, 2016
Supermodel Ayyan Ali. PHOTO: EXPRESS

KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) asked the lawyer representing model Ayyan Ali to produce documents regarding the placement of a fresh ban on her travel outside the country.

Headed by Justice Ahmed Ali Sheikh, the division bench fixed the hearing on her contempt plea against the interior ministry on May 16.

Ayyan, who was arrested from Islamabad airport while allegedly trying to smuggle $506,000 to Dubai in March last year, had sought contempt of court proceedings against the interior ministry for again placing her name on the Exit Control List (ECL) in violation of the high court's March 7 judgment through which it was removed by the authorities.

She had named the interior secretary, immigration authorities and others as respondents.

Her lawyers, Latif Khosa and Qadir Khan Mandokhel, argued that the SHC had, on March 7 this year, allowed his client's plea, directing the interior ministry to remove her name from the ECL. They argued that Ayyan had come to know that the ministry had once again included her name in the ECL on the request of the Federal Board of Revenue through the media, which amounts to committing contempt of the court.

Her lawyers contended that the authorities had violated the court order, therefore, they should be proceeded against for contempt.

During Tuesday's proceedings, additional attorney-general Salman Talibuddin said the interior ministry had removed the petitioner's name from the ECL in compliance with the court order. But, the same was included for some other reasons, he added.

The two-judges directed the petitioner to submit documents containing reasons for the re-inclusion of her name in the ECL by May 16.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 5th, 2016.

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