SC dismisses contempt of court application against Rehman Malik

Petitioner stated Malik had failed to compensate government for benefits utilised during his tenure as a senator


News Desk March 21, 2018
Rehman Malik. PHOTO: AFP

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the contempt of court application submitted against Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) senator and former interior minister Rehman Malik.

A three-member bench headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar heard the contempt of court plea submitted against Malik.

SC issues notice to Rehman Malik for non-implementation of court order

Malik’s lawyer, Latif Khosa adopted the stance that the contempt of court’s decision had already been rejected in the inter-court appeal and hence it should be dismissed by the top court.

After hearing the arguments, the CJP dismissed the application. On the dismissal of the plea, Malik said before the court that he had been attending the hearing as an interior minister since the past five years and that he is thankful to the court for ending the matter.

The petitioner, Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi, had adopted the stance that Malik had failed to compensate the government for the benefits utilised during his tenure as a senator despite the top court’s order in the dual nationality case.

The CJP, after the hearing, remarked that he had turned down 55 applications in the chamber and in the next two weeks, he will hear more cases that had never been worked upon by anyone before.

NAB-worthy: ‘Illegal’ hiring may land Rehman Malik in trouble

In December 2017, the former interior minister came into the limelight after a written response was submitted by the Ministry of Interior to a question by Iqbal Muhammad Ali Khan of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) in the National Assembly, revealed that Malik and top bureaucrats in interior ministry may have violated laws by hiring 147 persons in the Passport Office.

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