Ahsan Iqbal submits unconditional apology in LHC over anti-judiciary speech

LAHORE: Former interior minister Ahsan Iqbal submitted on Friday an unconditional apology in the Lahore High Court in relation to a contempt of court hearing against him.

A three-member bench headed by Justice Mazahar Ali Naqvi heard the petition today, which was filed by Munir Ahmad against Iqbal, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and 16 other leaders of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) for making anti-judiciary speeches. 

In today's hearing, Iqbal submitted a detailed answer to the court, where he said he respected the judiciary.

The court observed that yesterday, the Supreme Court had sentenced someone for contempt and that person had said outside the court that he never submitted an apology. 

The bench was likely referring to PML-N leader Daniyal Aziz. 

The court also observed that Iqbal's written statement did not contain the correct legal terms.

To this, Iqbal replied that he had just returned from a near-death experience and at the moment titles do not matter to him. The former minister was referring to a botched assassination attempt against him last month. 

LHC rejects Iqbal's petition to adjourn contempt hearing until polls

Iqbal had requested for the case to be adjourned till election as court appearances were affecting his election campaign

Speaking to the media outside the court, Iqbal said, "Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) is a group of opportunists," adding that PTI chief Imran Khan is not doing justice to his party members.

The former interior minister also questioned Imran about him aspiring to run the government when he could not even run a union council. 

The case

The petitioner has stated that Iqbal and Nawaz had used derogatory language against the Supreme Court judges on April 25 and 23 respectively and the same was aired by tv channels.

He had contended that the respondents' action was barred under Article 68 of the Constitution but the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) did not take any action despite being empowered by the PEMRA Ordinance.

The petitioner had stated further that the authority failed to implement provisions of PEMRA Ordinance and the court orders of April 16, therefore, contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents.