The Supreme Court Wednesday rejected Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan Deputy Convener Mustafa Kamal’s plea seeking an instant acceptance of his apology in a contempt suo motu case.
The development came as a three-member CJP Isa-led bench comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan heard the contempt of court case against Kamal and independent Senator Faisal Vawda.
Both politicians had done hard-hitting press conferences against the judiciary in Islamabad in May, with Vawda saying that no allegations could be levelled without evidence and Kamal sought to establish ethical standards for the judges as justice could “only be bought”.
Their statements had come after six Islamabad High Court judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council members, pointing out the intelligence agency’s meddling in judicial affairs. The politicos also pointed out the dual citizenship of an IHC judge.
Shortly after their tirade, the SC on Thursday swung into action against the leaders and took suo motu notice. Following a hearing on May 17, the court issued show-cause notices to the lawmakers.
In their responses, Kamal sought an unconditional apology and said he held “all the judges, in particular, the judges of the superior courts of Pakistan in the highest respect and esteem”.
Meanwhile, Senator Vawda refused to issue an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court and sought an end to the matter, saying that several others had issued remarks similar to his.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Pakistan issued contempt notice to 34 TV channels for airing ‘anti-judiciary press conferences’ of Senator Faisal Vawda and MQM-P leader Mustafa Kamal and instructed them to respond within two weeks.
The apex court also directed the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority to submit video recordings and Urdu transcripts of Vawda’s press conference from May 15 and Kamal’s press conference from May 16.
During the hearing, Barrister Farogh Naseem, representing Kamal, requested the court to accept his client’s one-page unconditional apology.
He emphasized that Kamal had actually referred to pending Riba (usury) cases. CJP Isa questioned whether those cases were filed before the Federal Shariat Court. Regarding the decision to take suo motu action over the speeches, CJP Isa expressed dismay at being subjected to abusive language, questioning if such language was acceptable in any country.
He clarified that the notice wasn’t about criticism directed at him personally but rather about criticism against the judiciary. In response to Moiz Ahmed, Vawda’s lawyer, expressing his client’s desire to discuss Pemra, CJP Isa affirmed their right to speak as counsel.
Addressing Ahmed’s intention to read out the questions and answers from Vawda’s press conference, Justice Saadat scrutinized the context, noting Vawda’s explicit targeting of Justice Babar Sattar and Justice Athar Minallah. CJP Isa criticized media channels for broadcasting obscene language and questioned Pemra’s ban on reporting court proceedings.
