Strike call: ‘I was allowing Sindh to vent frustrations’
Case likely to help differentiate free speech and contempt of court.
ISLAMABAD:
Sindh Information Minister Sharjeel Memon on Tuesday claimed that the decision to call a strike to protest the Supreme Court verdict against the appointment of Deedar Hussain Shah as Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was an exercise in free speech that allowed the people of Sindh to vent their frustrations at what they felt was an unjustified decision by the higher judiciary.
Memon made these claims in a reply submitted to the Supreme Court, where he asked for the contempt of court case against him to be withdrawn.
The court had held Memon and PPP Sindh general secretary Taj Haider in contempt on March 26 for calling a strike on March 11 to protest the decision to remove Shah from the NAB chairman position. At least five people were killed and dozens of others injured in the ensuing violence throughout the province.
Memon claimed that “the timely decision of the strike” allowed the people of Sindh to express their “negative perception” of the decision to remove Shah and was meant to safeguard against a potentially explosive situation.
He stated that he did not make the controversial statement which was quoted in the court’s notice with the intention to commit contempt of court. He said he had exercised his right to comment on the apex court’s decision as a citizen of Pakistan. “The statement, unfortunately, has been misconstrued since no judge was ridiculed or scandalised,” he contended.
The apex court had charged PPP leaders for contempt in view of the press conference Memon had called to denounce the verdict and Haider’s statement broadcast on television channels in which he had declared that legislators would hold a rally from the Sindh Assembly to the Sindh High Court to lodge a protest against what he described as “politically-motivated decisions of the superior judiciary.”
Haider had said there would be a general strike across Sindh against the “interference of the judiciary in administrative affairs.”
Sharjeel Memon requested the apex court to take into account statements of political leaders, media analysts, citizens, religious leaders and civil society members in the wake of a string of controversial judgments like the Mukhtaran Mai case, Raymond Davis case and NRO case.
The case is likely to become an interesting litmus test for the as-yet-undefined boundary between freedom of speech and contempt of court.
The Supreme Court had decided against Shah’s appointment after National Assembly Opposition Leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan claimed he had not been consulted on the appointment of the NAB chairman by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, as is constitutionally mandated under the 18th Amendment.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 6th, 2011.
Sindh Information Minister Sharjeel Memon on Tuesday claimed that the decision to call a strike to protest the Supreme Court verdict against the appointment of Deedar Hussain Shah as Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was an exercise in free speech that allowed the people of Sindh to vent their frustrations at what they felt was an unjustified decision by the higher judiciary.
Memon made these claims in a reply submitted to the Supreme Court, where he asked for the contempt of court case against him to be withdrawn.
The court had held Memon and PPP Sindh general secretary Taj Haider in contempt on March 26 for calling a strike on March 11 to protest the decision to remove Shah from the NAB chairman position. At least five people were killed and dozens of others injured in the ensuing violence throughout the province.
Memon claimed that “the timely decision of the strike” allowed the people of Sindh to express their “negative perception” of the decision to remove Shah and was meant to safeguard against a potentially explosive situation.
He stated that he did not make the controversial statement which was quoted in the court’s notice with the intention to commit contempt of court. He said he had exercised his right to comment on the apex court’s decision as a citizen of Pakistan. “The statement, unfortunately, has been misconstrued since no judge was ridiculed or scandalised,” he contended.
The apex court had charged PPP leaders for contempt in view of the press conference Memon had called to denounce the verdict and Haider’s statement broadcast on television channels in which he had declared that legislators would hold a rally from the Sindh Assembly to the Sindh High Court to lodge a protest against what he described as “politically-motivated decisions of the superior judiciary.”
Haider had said there would be a general strike across Sindh against the “interference of the judiciary in administrative affairs.”
Sharjeel Memon requested the apex court to take into account statements of political leaders, media analysts, citizens, religious leaders and civil society members in the wake of a string of controversial judgments like the Mukhtaran Mai case, Raymond Davis case and NRO case.
The case is likely to become an interesting litmus test for the as-yet-undefined boundary between freedom of speech and contempt of court.
The Supreme Court had decided against Shah’s appointment after National Assembly Opposition Leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan claimed he had not been consulted on the appointment of the NAB chairman by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, as is constitutionally mandated under the 18th Amendment.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 6th, 2011.