ISLAMABAD: Not happy with the explanation he offered for his incendiary outburst, the Supreme Court decided on Friday that it would charge Senator Nehal Hashmi with committing contempt of court on July 10.

At the outset of the hearing, a three-judge bench of the court headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan was shocked to learn that Mr Hashmi, already stripped of membership of the ruling party over his diatribe against the judiciary, had left for Saudi Arabia to perform Umrah without informing the court.

The bench is seized with a contempt of court case which was initiated after suo motu notice was taken of Senator Hashmi’s “uncharitable” remarks in which he appeared to threaten members of a joint investigation team and the judiciary for probing allegations of financial wrongdoing levelled against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his family.

The bench decided that the senator would be charged with contempt of court on July 10 when it would resume its proceedings after the Eidul Fitr holidays.

When Mr Hashmi’s counsel, Hashmat Habib, told the bench that after submitting his reply to it his client had left for Saudi Arabia and was expected to return either on July 8 or July 9, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed observed that the senator should have sought permission from the bench for performing Umrah, adding the bench would never have objected to his plans of going to Saudi Arabia.

Senator requests court to quash criminal case against him

However, Mr Habib replied that during an earlier hearing Mr Hashmi had informed the bench of his intention to perform Umrah this month. He also conceded that he had received the transcript of the controversial speech that Mr Hashmi made on May 28 from the office of the attorney general.

He argued that he would have been in a better position to submit a proper reply if he could lay his hands on the court registrar’s note on the basis of which the present case had been initiated.

At this the bench said the registrar’s note was part of the case record which he could have seen earlier, if he thought doing so was necessary.

The counsel said he would not object if the senator was hanged if the court thought the latter had really committed contempt of court, but he should be saved and protected from the “malicious campaign which had been launched against him” even though he had experience of 30 years in the field of law.

The bench, however, reminded Mr Habib that the charges being faced by Mr Hashmi did not attract the penalty of hanging.

The counsel said that Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf Ali should not act as a prosecutor in the contempt case because a criminal case had been lodged in Karachi against the senator on his recommendations, claiming that this was objectionable as the centre was interfering in the affairs of the province.

Even the guards provided to his client had been taken away by the government and the latter was facing cases under the Anti-Terrorism Act, which should be stopped on the orders of the court, Mr Habib said.

At this Justice Khan observed that the court did not need to interfere in criminal proceedings.

Senator’s plea

In his reply to the show-cause notice served on him, Mr Hashmi did not tender any apology but requested the court to vacate the notice and also order the quashing of the criminal case registered against him in the Bahadurabad police station, Karachi.

He also sought initiation of criminal proceedings against the “actual culprit who distorted and doctored some pieces of his speech and transmitted the same in the social media and the electronic media only to misguide the apex court”.

He also requested the court to order that the “conspiracy launched against him” be investigated and unearthed.

Mr Hashmi also argued that after “his forcible involvement in the case under unfortunate circumstances” many serious questions had cropped up, including whether the treatment meted out to him on the first day of hearing in the contempt case was proper and according to law.

Similarly, he asked, whether the lodging of a criminal case against him in Karachi was lawful, that too without giving him any opportunity to defend himself. Such cases had become a burden on the system of administration of justice, he added.

Published in Dawn, June 24th, 2017