ISLAMABAD, Feb 22: Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq formally displayed before the Supreme Court on Wednesday evidence relating to the contempt of court case initiated against Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani for not pursuing graft cases in Switzerland also involving President Asif Ali Zardari.
“In support of charges framed against the respondent (prime minister), I tender the certified copies of judgments and orders passed from time to time regarding paragraph 178 of Dr Mubashir Hassan versus Federation (NRO) judgment,” said the attorney general who will prosecute the prime minister during the contempt case.
A seven-judge SC bench, headed by Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk, had on Feb 13 charged the prime minister with contempt of court.
He is facing the charge for wilfully flouting, disregarding and disobeying the court’s direction given in Para 178 that asked for reviving a request by the government for mutual legal assistance in the case relating to the laundered money lying in foreign countries, including Switzerland.
The attorney general exhibited the same evidence he had submitted to the court on Feb 16. The evidence contained 43 documents (469 pages in four volumes) mainly consisting of different court orders — Dec 16, 2010, NRO verdict, Nov 25, 2011, SC judgments in the NRO review petition and NRO implementation case from May 24, 2010, to Feb 16, 2012, in Ahmed Riaz Sheikh and Adnan A. Khawaja cases.
The prime minister’s counsel, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, who was present in the court, said he reserved the right to raise objections if further evidence was produced by the attorney general in the contempt case.
However, he said, he would consult his client to seek instructions about the submission of evidence and defence on behalf of the respondent.
He said his client might go through the entire evidence as these were not in his knowledge.
In reply to a question by the bench, Barrister Ahsan said he would submit his evidence on Feb 28.
Before adjourning the proceedings to Feb 28, the court dismissed an appeal by Shahid Orakzai against objection by the registrar office to his petition which challenged the appointment of the attorney general as prosecutor in the contempt matter.
The court asked Mr Orakzai to convince it how his fundamental right had been infringed in the contempt case. But he could only come up with an argument that the attorney general should not be assigned the task of prosecuting the prime minister because the trial would not be fair then.