KARACHI, May 2: A three-member bench of the Sindh High Court heard on Monday detailed arguments in a lawyer’s appeal against his conviction for contempt of court by an election tribunal consisting of two SHC judges on the eve of October 2002 general elections.
Advocate Anwar Ahmed Yusufzai was convicted and sentenced when he shouted contemptuous slogans following dismissal of PPP leader Benazir Bhutto’s appeal against rejection of her nomination papers.
The appellate election tribunal comprised Justices Rehmat Hussain Jafri and Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery.
He owned the slogans when the tribunal charged him with contempt in the face of the court and was sentenced to undergo six months of imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs5000 under the Contempt of Court Act, 1976.
The lawyer challenged his conviction and sentence through Advocate Rasheed A. Razvi.
He said the tribunal had no power under the law to try or convict him for its contempt. While the Election Commission is empowered to prosecute a person for its contempt, no such power is available to a tribunal constituted under the Representation of People Act. He was not issued a show cause notice nor heard in his defence, he said.
The full bench, which consisted of Justices Ataur Rahman, Anwar Zaheer Jamali and S. Ali Aslam Jaferi, adjourned further proceedings to May 16 after hearing federal government counsel Faisal Arab and Additional Advocate-General M. Ahmed Pirzada, who appeared on court notice.
The federal and provincial attorneys argued that a high court judge does not cease to be a judge when conducting judicial proceedings in a designated capacity under a law. The election tribunal consisted of two high court judges, who enjoyed the power to prosecute its contemners.
There was, they said, no need to issue a showcause notice as the contempt was committed in the face of the court. When the tribunal asked him whether he raised the objectionable slogans, he not only owned them but also said he was prepared to go to jail. He never tendered an apology then or thereafter. The lawyer had committed contempt under Article 204 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Court Act and was rightly convicted and sentenced in order to uphold the dignity of the judiciary.
Advocate Rasheed Razvi submitted that the attorneys had raised new points which had not been mentioned in the counter-affidavit. The power to prosecute contemners had to be specifically conferred and could not be inferred, he submitted.
NOTICES ISSUED: Meanwhile, a division bench, comprising Justices Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Azizullah M. Memon, issued show cause notices for contempt to Saudi-Pak Commercial Bank and its chief executive for May 4.
Advocate Saalim Salam Ansari submitted on behalf of First Prudential Modaraba that the high court had ordered unfreezing of accounts of First Pak Modaraba and First Prudential Modaraba in the presence of the deputy prosecutor-general of the National Accountability Bureau and the counsel for Saudi Pak Commercial Bank. However, when the cheques were presented for encashment by the modaraba concerns, the bank returned them with the noting ‘accounts frozen’ and/or ‘matter sub judice’.
