SC reserves verdict on whether AG can prosecute Malik Riaz contempt case
SC decided to reserve verdict after seeing the list of witnesses provided by Malik Riaz.
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court, adjourning the Malik Riaz contempt case till September 20, reserved its verdict on whether the attorney general can prosecute the case or not, reported Express News on Monday.
Speaking to the media after the hearing, Riaz’s lawyer Dr Abdul Basit said that according to the law, no private person other than the attorney general can prosecute the case, but after looking at the list of witnesses provided by his client, the Supreme Court decided to reserve a verdict.
On Saturday, the prosecution of Riaz had submitted a list of witnesses which included names of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, his son Arsalan Iftikhar and SC Registrar Faqeer Hussain.
Basit told the media that during the hearing, the court asked the attorney general if he had represented Riaz earlier in any case to which the attorney general replied in affirmative. The court then asked him if he could prosecute this case fairly, to which the attorney general said that it was his right to do so.
The Supreme Court, adjourning the Malik Riaz contempt case till September 20, reserved its verdict on whether the attorney general can prosecute the case or not, reported Express News on Monday.
Speaking to the media after the hearing, Riaz’s lawyer Dr Abdul Basit said that according to the law, no private person other than the attorney general can prosecute the case, but after looking at the list of witnesses provided by his client, the Supreme Court decided to reserve a verdict.
On Saturday, the prosecution of Riaz had submitted a list of witnesses which included names of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, his son Arsalan Iftikhar and SC Registrar Faqeer Hussain.
Basit told the media that during the hearing, the court asked the attorney general if he had represented Riaz earlier in any case to which the attorney general replied in affirmative. The court then asked him if he could prosecute this case fairly, to which the attorney general said that it was his right to do so.