Contempt of court: SC registrar returns NAB chairman’s plea
The registrar’s office returned the plea saying, “the application had contemptuous language in it”.
Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Fasih Bokhari. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
ISLAMABAD:
The chief of the nation’s top anti-graft body is in hot water. On Saturday, the Supreme Court registrar returned his application in which he accused the bench hearing contempt proceedings against him of bias. According to the registrar, the application included “contemptuous language.”
NAB Chairman Admiral (retd) Fasih Bokhari was served a contempt notice by the Supreme Court on January 31 for “scandalising the court and its performance.”
Bokhari’s application, filed through Advocate Navid Rasul Mirza, stated that the January 31 order carries “an air of conclusiveness and finality of opinion, therefore, the respondent is led to believe that the honourable bench stand biased and predisposed toward him and he already stands condemned.”
The petitioner alleged that Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan told Bokhari last year that Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry wished to have one Advocate Raja Amir Abbas inducted in the legal branch of NAB. His inability to make the appointment, however, “irked the honourable chief justice, giving rise to a distinctive predisposition against the respondent,” it alleged.
The registrar’s office, however, returned the plea saying, “the application had contemptuous language in it”.
The application further contended that in the case between the chief justice’s son, Arslan Iftikhar, and real-estate developer Malik Riaz, the former was “harsh and unrelentingly critical of the respondent.”
The chairman added that he was blamed for a “close relationship with Malik Riaz both on a personal level as well as in financial terms”.
“Arslan Iftikhar’s relationship with the chief justice raises a very reasonable and strong apprehension in the respondent’s mind that the opinion, rancor and the hostility carried by the son, Arslan Iftikhar, against the respondent will go on to influence the father, the chief justice’s mind against the respondent,” he added.
Having raised these points, Bokhari said he was entitled to a fair trial and due process, which includes adherence to the law and procedure even prior to the start of any proceedings against him.
In order to substantiate his point, Bokhari referred to Section 11(3) of the contempt of court ordinance which state that judicial contempt proceedings initiated by a judge shall not be heard by the said judge.
While justifying his letter to the president, the NAB chairman said it was a confidential communication/report made by him as the administrative head of NAB. The court had issued a show-cause notice under Article 204 of the Constitution read with Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 to the NAB chairman over the letter written by him to President Asif Ali Zardari.
“Whatever he has expressed in the letter, tantamount to causing interference with or to obstruct the process of the court and has used certain expressions to scandalise the court and its performance with an object to undermine the authority of the court and to bring it into hatred of the general public who approaches the court for decision of their cases,” the SC’s order had said.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 17th, 2013.
The chief of the nation’s top anti-graft body is in hot water. On Saturday, the Supreme Court registrar returned his application in which he accused the bench hearing contempt proceedings against him of bias. According to the registrar, the application included “contemptuous language.”
NAB Chairman Admiral (retd) Fasih Bokhari was served a contempt notice by the Supreme Court on January 31 for “scandalising the court and its performance.”
Bokhari’s application, filed through Advocate Navid Rasul Mirza, stated that the January 31 order carries “an air of conclusiveness and finality of opinion, therefore, the respondent is led to believe that the honourable bench stand biased and predisposed toward him and he already stands condemned.”
The petitioner alleged that Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan told Bokhari last year that Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry wished to have one Advocate Raja Amir Abbas inducted in the legal branch of NAB. His inability to make the appointment, however, “irked the honourable chief justice, giving rise to a distinctive predisposition against the respondent,” it alleged.
The registrar’s office, however, returned the plea saying, “the application had contemptuous language in it”.
The application further contended that in the case between the chief justice’s son, Arslan Iftikhar, and real-estate developer Malik Riaz, the former was “harsh and unrelentingly critical of the respondent.”
The chairman added that he was blamed for a “close relationship with Malik Riaz both on a personal level as well as in financial terms”.
“Arslan Iftikhar’s relationship with the chief justice raises a very reasonable and strong apprehension in the respondent’s mind that the opinion, rancor and the hostility carried by the son, Arslan Iftikhar, against the respondent will go on to influence the father, the chief justice’s mind against the respondent,” he added.
Having raised these points, Bokhari said he was entitled to a fair trial and due process, which includes adherence to the law and procedure even prior to the start of any proceedings against him.
In order to substantiate his point, Bokhari referred to Section 11(3) of the contempt of court ordinance which state that judicial contempt proceedings initiated by a judge shall not be heard by the said judge.
While justifying his letter to the president, the NAB chairman said it was a confidential communication/report made by him as the administrative head of NAB. The court had issued a show-cause notice under Article 204 of the Constitution read with Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 to the NAB chairman over the letter written by him to President Asif Ali Zardari.
“Whatever he has expressed in the letter, tantamount to causing interference with or to obstruct the process of the court and has used certain expressions to scandalise the court and its performance with an object to undermine the authority of the court and to bring it into hatred of the general public who approaches the court for decision of their cases,” the SC’s order had said.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 17th, 2013.