Supreme Court assures transparency in Daniyal Aziz contempt case
The hearing has been adjourned till March 30 (Friday)
March 26, 2018
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court assured on Monday that the trial in the contempt case against Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader Daniyal Aziz will be transparent and fair.
During the proceedings, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, who is heading the three-member bench hearing the case, remarked: “The trial will be transparent as per the Constitution.”
Aziz’s lawyer had raised reservation over the failure of the prosecution to submit the list of witnesses before the court. Responding to this, Justice Saeed asserted: “It is the responsibility of the court to ensure the safety of the suspect.”
He explained that when one witness will be recording his/her statement before the court, the other witness will be kept outside, adding that no one will ask the witness trivial or unrelated questions.
The case has been adjourned till March 30 (Friday), and the defence was directed to submit arguments and witness list before the next hearing.
“The bench will get extremely upset if arguments and a witness list is not completed before Friday,” remarked Justice Saeed.
On March 13, Federal Privatisation Minister Daniyal Aziz was indicted on contempt charges by the Supreme Court.
As the hearing proceeded, Justice Mushir Alam read the charges, which included several instances where the minister had made anti-judiciary remarks.
Aziz’s counsel Ali Raza pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Previously, the bench, which includes Justices Alam and Mazhar Alam Miankhel, had expressed dissatisfaction with Aziz's response to the court's show-cause notice and fixed his indictment for March 13.
The minister's response to the court had stated that being a parliamentarian he could not even think of disrespecting state institutions. The reply further said that Aziz believes in the supremacy of the Constitution and respects state institutions, including the judiciary.
“Media ran my comments out of context,” the PML-N leader had stated in the response. He had also pleaded to the court to take back the show-cause notice issued to him in the case.
