Malik knocks on SC door against LHC verdict


Qaiser Zulfiqar June 22, 2010

ISLAMABAD: Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik Tuesday filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Lahore High Court (LHC) verdict against him, requesting the apex court to set it aside.

Malik had earlier filed an appeal in the LHC against the sentence awarded to him by the NAB court, which the LHC rejected and upheld the sentence. The same evening, President Asif Ali Zardari, using his discretionary powers under Article 45 of the Constitution, granted pardon to Malik.

Ali Zafar, counsel for Rehman Malik, however filed an appeal in the Supreme Court on Tuesday with the prayer that leave to appeal may be granted on the impugned order of May 17 passed by the LHC’s division bench and the conviction and sentence handed down on January 7, 2004.

He also appealed to the apex court to declare as unlawful the impugned order of May 17, 2010 and the conviction in the order of January 12, 2004 and acquit him in the case.

Malik pleaded that there is absolutely no proof on record that he was an absconder and had intentionally escaped to avoid facing a trial. He also mentioned in the petition that he was forced to leave the country and immediately after he returned to Pakistan, he appeared before the court and surrendered himself following which he was acquitted of the charge under section 31-A of the NAB Ordinance.

He also submitted that the LHC has failed to consider that the principles of justice and due process demand that section 87 and 88 of CrPC cannot be used by the NAB authorities and that when a case is transferred, then the formalities and procedural requirements of section 31-A NAO must also be fulfilled.

He submitted that the LHC has failed to appreciate the newly-inserted Article 10-A of the Constitution which makes it very clear that an accused must have the right to a fair trial.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 23rd, 2010.

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