Says has not yet examined document; Court orders ex- judge to provide original affidavit within four days
Staff Reporter Islamabad
Former chief justice of Gilgit-Baltistan Rana Shamim on Tuesday distanced himself from an affidavit attributed to him in which allegations of collusion were levelled against another former jurist Mian Saqib Nisar, telling the Islamabad High Court (IHC) that he had not yet examined the ‘leaked’ document.
Shamim made the remarks during the hearing on show-cause notices issued over an investigative report that highlighted Shamim’s alleged accusation against Nisar of colluding to deny bails to top PML-N leadership before general elections 2018.
The report published on Nov 15 in an English daily, quoted Shamim as saying in an alleged affidavit that he witnessed Nisar relaying instructions to a high court judge to not release the father-daughter duo in the corruption references against them.
IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah had subsequently taken notice of the report and later issued show-cause notices to Abbasi, and two others as well as Shamim under the Contempt of Court Ordinance.
All four respondents were in the court but only Rehman, Ghouri and Abbasi had submitted their written responses.
At the outset of Tuesday’s hearing, Justice Minallah remarked that the case was related to “my court and its accountability”, adding, “along with media freedom, this case is also about the independence of the judiciary.”
Justice Minallah asked Shamim whether he had submitted his response, to which the latter replied that the court should ask his lawyer about it. He added that there had been
a tragedy in his family and requested the court to schedule the next hearing after December 12.
The IHC chief justice, however, gave Shamim four days to submit his written response. Shamim was previously represented by his son Ahmed Hassan Rana, an advocate of the Supreme Court. However, he later changed his legal counsel to Latif Afridi.
“I have not yet seen the [published] affidavit,” the ex-GB judge informed the court, referring to the document in the report carried by the paper.
It may be mentioned here that the report had said that Shamim confirmed the contents of the leaked affidavit both on a phone call with the correspondent, as well as a message.
When Justice Minallah asked what purpose Shamim’s affidavit would serve and whether he had given it to a newspaper, the former judge responded, “My affidavit is sealed in a locker in the UK. I don’t know how it was leaked.”
The IHC judge again pressed Shamim, asking him whether he had or hadn’t given his affidavit concerned to the newspaper.
“You must have recorded the affidavit for some purpose,” the judge remarked, questioning why Shamim had written the affidavit three years after the alleged incident.
When Shamim requested the court to give him more time to submit his response on account of the chehlum of his brother and sister-in-law, the judge remarked.
