Plea against Altaf: Court asks petitioner to provide evidence

If you want the court to issue notice to Altaf, show that he is the lawfully elected head of MQM: CJ


Our Correspondent June 18, 2013
Altaf Hussain. PHOTO: MQM

ISLAMABAD:


A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court ordered a petitioner on Monday to amend his plea against Altaf Hussain and provide documentary evidence that the London-based leader was the lawful head of Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) registered with the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).


“If you want the court to issue notice to Altaf Hussain for making a speech on May 11, asking for separation
of Karachi from the country, show that he is the lawfully elected head of MQM,” remarked Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry heading the bench that heard the petition filed by Barrister Zafarullah of Watan Party.

Zafarullah, citing records available with the ECP, claimed that Dr Farooq Sattar being the deputy convener was the head of MQM. He pointed out that a convener should be the head of the party since no one had contested the top position in the party. The ECP, according to him, did not even have any record of MQM’s internal elections.

In response to his arguments, the chief justice said that this issue could be taken up with the poll supervisory body.

Barrister Zafarullah sought time to amend his petition for provision of additional information and the bench adjourned the hearing for 10 days.

It was on May 22 that the petition came up for preliminary hearing but the bench restrained from issuing notices to Altaf Hussain and asked the petitioner to determine his lawful status. In his petition, Barrister Zafarullah had made Altaf Hussain, the MQM secretary general, ECP, law secretary and Pemra as respondents.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 18th, 2013.

COMMENTS (1)

Bilal | 10 years ago | Reply

Hate Pakistan judicial system, especially this chief justice led so called justice system.

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