ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s counsel Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan submitted an application in the Supreme Court on Monday seeking permission to bring witnesses in the contempt of court case.
The application asked the court to call three witnesses, Secretary Cabinet/Defence Nargis Sethi, former law minister Babar Awan and Secretary Law Muhammad Masood Chisti. The witnesses will try to prove to the court that the prime minister is not guilty of contempt of court.
The application also asked the court to include two summaries in the hearing of the case, dated May 21, 2010 and September 21, 2010. The summaries were sent by secretary and minister of law and justice to the prime minister’s office advising him “not to write the letter to prosecutors in Switzerland”.
The hearing of the case, under a seven-member bench headed by Justice Nasirul Mulk, will continue tomorrow (Tuesday).
Aitzaz’s written application
The two-page application of the prime minister, submitted by Ahsan, stated:
A charge on the allegation of ‘Contempt of Court’ has been framed on February 13 to which the applicant [prime minister] has pleaded ‘Not Guilty’. In his private/personal capacity, the applicant cannot and does not wish to, exercise the official power and authority of the office of the prime minister to direct or require any official to appear as a witness even though he seeks the opportunity to present evidence and witness in his defence against the charge.
With respect to private individuals he has no power or authority to summon them.
It is therefore necessary, desirable, in the interest of justice and for just decision in a fair trial in accordance with due process of law that the court may be pleased to summon [three] officials/persons as court witnesses with certified copies of the documents [two summaries].
The withheld documents have been referred to in the prosecution exhibits. Therefore, to be fair to the court and to the defence in a fair trial, these witnesses ought to have been produced by the prosecution as its witnesses (PWs) enabling the accused/applicant to cross-examination them.
He has thus been denied this right. As PWs, the prosecution would also have had no right to cross-examination them and will now be put at an unfair advantage prejudicing the accused/applicant. For this reason also the witnesses need not to be summoned as defence witnesses (DW) but at the best as court witnesses (CWs) if not as prosecution witnesses (PW).
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this… court may kindly be pleased to summon the aforementioned documents and court witnesses for recording their statements in the titled case.
COMMENTS (3)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Judiciary must be fair and should have no bias,I think Aittzaz is on right track,Judges should not fall in the hands of Shareef Brothers
Mr. Aitzaz u will lose the case
Great--------Aitzaz Ahsan helped to restore the judiciary, I mean the "free judiciary"-----Now, I want to see the same Aitzaz Ahsan help them become the "fair judicary"--------I'm ready -----now the lessons can begin!