PM contempt: SC to announce verdict on April 26

Supreme Court reserves judgement in the contempt case against Premier Gilani.

Afp/web Desk April 24, 2012

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has reserved judgement in the contempt case against Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and will announce its verdict on April 26, 2012.

The hearing was underway by a seven-member bench, headed by Justice Nasirul Mulk, who asked Gilani's counsel, Aitzaz Ahsan, to make sure that the prime minister is present in court on that day.

Gilani has appeared twice before the court and had decided to fight the case. He had maintained throughout the proceedings of the case that he had done nothing against the rules of business.

Ahsan had said that the bench was not eligible to hear the case as it had taken notice itself.

While speaking to the media on the premises of the Supreme Court Ahsan said that the AG had agreed that according to the current record, there was no contempt of court case against Gilani.

Ahsan said that it was AG Qadir’s opinion which he gave to the bench after looking at all the matters, considering the law, facts and incidents and that the decision will be given by the court.

Asked if the prime minister will appear in person, he said: “I will inform him about it today and he will inshallah (God willing) come to the court.”

He said the maximum punishment Gilani could face if convicted was six months in prison, but he was hopeful the judges would acquit his client.

Presenting his arguments against Gilani, Attorney General of Pakistan Irfan Qadir had said during the hearing today that there is no contempt of court law present in Pakistan.

Qadir said that a section of the media was reporting against him, alleging that he had sided with the premier’s counsel, Aitzaz Ahsan and was trying to bail out Gilani.

The AG gave the reference of Section 8 (2) and said that the court can release orders to stop such reporting.

He also informed the bench that some reports had mentioned Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry saying that “robbers have been made ministers”, and said that such a statement cannot be attributed to the chief justice.

Qadir said that such media reports were creating pressure in the case and were trying to influence the court proceedings.

Justice Sarmad Jalal Usmani questioned the AG if he thought that the court was being influenced, who replied that even if the court wasn’t getting influenced, he found the statements offensive and prayed to the court to take action against them.

He said that since he has been made a prosecutor in the case, he will present his arguments independently, without getting influenced from anyone.

Justice Mulk asked him to provide the copies of the United Nations guidelines that he was reading from. The AG said that he did not get time, otherwise he would have provided copies to the court.


Lala Gee | 9 years ago | Reply


"would know that Shaheed BB and AAZ both got off scott free after the revelations that the convictions were based on falsified evidence by Pakistani authorities"


"Is there a single example in modern history that a country’s SC is begging a foreign lower court to try its sitting head of the state?"

You guys seem to be following "everything is fair in love and war" out of your "Jialapan". No argument or proof can satisfy or change the opinion of a person blinded by love or hate. A paramount example is Aitezaz Ahsan who on numerous occasions said that PM ought to and must write the letter to Swiss authorities for reopening the graft cases, and now he tells the Supreme Court that the letter can not be written.

Saad: Apparently "BB and AAZ both got off scott free" because of the letter written by AG Pak, but in reality as a result of the understanding between USA and General Musharraf manifested through NRO.

Mriza: Supreme Court of Pakistan is just asking to withdraw the letter written by Malik Qayyum illegally, and even without authority, because the NRO has been declared null-and-void by the full 17 member bench of the Supreme Court as a result of the Parliament's refusal to ratify it. Regarding "sitting head of the state" part, you should be ashamed of accepting a convicted criminal as your Chairperson, in the first place, and then nominating him for the post.

And as I said before, wrongly implicating a person of the stature of Prime Minister and Chairperson of a political party in a graft money laundering case by a publisher is a big big jackpot for the accused. Why Zardari and Benazir did not sued the publishing house for damages which could have easily earned them tens of millions of dollars?, but only if they were innocent.

Moreover, you should also read the book, especially page 82 to 87 which give detailed account of the corruption and embarrassments of the BB, AAZ, and NS.

Ahmer Ali | 9 years ago | Reply

There is nothing going be changed or happened because in PPP's dictionary there is no any word related to "contempt of court" and only the word is "exemption or immunity".

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


Most Read