Steel Mills case: SC asks Malik to 'present himself' later

Interior minister says he was enhancing the scope of investigation, had no motive of disrespecting SC.


Web Desk February 28, 2013
File photo of Interior Minister Rehman Malik. PHOTO: PID/FILE

ISLAMABAD: Interior minister Rehman Malik has submitted written apology to the Supreme Court of Pakistan in reference to the Pakistan Steel Mills (PSM) corruption case, Express News reported on Thursday.

The Supreme Court had taken a suo moto action against the corruption charges against PSM.

Rehman Malik’s involvement in the case began when he formulated a Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) joint investigation team to investigate the Steel Mills corruption case. This step by the interior minister did not impress the apex court.

The Supreme Court issued a contempt of court notice to Interior Minister Rehman Malik for “unnecessary transfers” of officials conducting the probe, on December 17, 2009.

“I was trying to enhance the scope of investigations by taking this step,” said Rehman Malik addressing a press conference outside the Supreme Court.

He further explained, “I initiated the investigation because National Assembly told me to give details. I presented myself to the Supreme Court because I want to gain respect and not embarrassment.”

“The court has said that they will hear me out later which suits me perfectly as government is set to end in few weeks and I will be free of all duties and present my case properly.”

Rehman Malik avoided saying that he had submitted a written apology and emphasised that he had always respected judiciary and courts and will continue to do so.

On May 16, 2012, a three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry directed the director-general of FIA to hand over all investigation records to NAB. The court expressed lack of trust in the investigation conducted by the FIA.

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