Addressing the closing session of the International Judicial Conference in Islamabad on Sunday‚ he said mutual cooperation beneficial for justice and Judicial conference will help in providing quick justice.
He said Lawyers plays pivotal role for provision of justice in society.
The Chief Justice said lawyers‚ media and civil society have played important role in the restoration of judiciary.
He urged all relevant segment of society to come forward to play their due for quick and affordable justice. He said results of national judicial policy are emerging.
The Chief Justice maintained that judiciary should be free from every kind of pressure for provision of justice.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry on this occasion launched a book "Counter-Terrorism: International Law and Practice" co-edited by Ana Maria Salinas de Frias‚ Katja Samuel and Nigel White.
Praising the book‚ Chief Justice remarks that it examines many significant issues of great concern to Pakistan on Sunday.
Chief Justice said that the International Legal Regime is suffering similar problems which all our domestic legal systems have gone through.
He said there is no better method than to subscribe to the Rule of Law and the norms of justice.
Addressing the Conference the First Deputy of Iran Judiciary Seyed Ebrahim Raeisi said his country wants to achieve the best and most appropriate mechanisms to solve the problems and remove obstacles existing before the fulfillment of justice in the human societies.
He said that in near future‚ the Conference of Attorneys General and Prosecutors General of ECO and OIC member states will be held in Tehran. It would help promote the judicial-police cooperation level in the region.
The hard-hitting speeches in question openly cast doubts and criticised the judiciary in general and the Supreme Court in particular – particularly the one by the PPP’s young co-chairman during a meeting of the party’s Central Executive Committee in Naudero.
Sources said a note was submitted to the Chief Justice based on press clipping regarding the speeches, on which Justice Chaudhry directed the concerned section in the apex court to furnish a complete record before him.
Sources in the Supreme Court, however, said that it was a routine matter as the Chief Justice usually seeks more information about important issues when a file is put before him. However, on many occasions, such records serve as catalysts for suo motu notice on important issues.
Two PPP leaders – the prime minister himself as well as Senator Babar Awan – are already facing contempt proceedings.
Seven member bench of the Supreme Court (SC) Thursday resumed the contempt of court case against Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani, who was criticized by the court over his assertion that he cannot act upon the ruling for the time being.
Defending the PM Gilani’s measure not to write Swiss letter avoiding the court order for over two years now, his counsel Aitezaz Ahsan said the matter relates the President of the State, who enjoys out and out immunity at home and abroad; hence, it is not a breach of judicial order (if the PM Gilani does not write letter to Swiss authorities to re-open graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari), adding instead, it pertains to the esteem of Pakistan among world communities, a private TV channel reported.
He added presidential immunity stays in effect until he (President Asif Ali Zardari) is in office.
Justice Sarmad Jalal Usmani remarked he did not solicit immunity under Article-248 of the Constitution. On this, Aitezaz said the PM’s counsel cannot demand this, as only president or governor can seek immunity and the case being heard by the court is against the Prime Minister, not the president.
Aitezaz furthermore said he did not raise the issue against the judges of present bench not on the basis of partiality; instead, the issue was raised in the light of Article-10A of the Constitution, according to which, it would amount to negation of fair trial if a bench issuing show-cause notice or framing charge sheet, hears the same case.
‘I took no personal exception against any honorable judge of the bench,’ he added.
Justice Gulzar remarked if the judges are deprived of the power of hearing on the basis of charge-sheet, it will entail far-reaching consequences.
The PM’s counsel said Article-10A is a fundamental right and no law contradicting it, can stay as it is. Justice Aijaz Afzal said it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to incorporate any judge in the bench.
Replying to this, Ahsan said the Chief Justice forms any bench under Supreme Court’s rules, not under the Constitution, adding these rules are not above the Constitution.
Justice Nasirul Mulk stressed the PM Gilani’s assertion that he cannot implement the court’s order for the time being, is a violation of the judicial ruling. The hearing was adjourned till tomorrow (Friday).
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani approached Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) leader Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan as his lawyer in the contempt of court case issued against him, reported Express News 24/7 on Tuesday.The hearing of the case will begin on January 19, in which Gilani has agreed to appear personally.Ahsan, who is also the former president of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), has been asked to brief Gilani about the legalities in the case and to accompany him in the hearing.
The announcement came after the PPP leader met with PM Gilani on Tuesday.
Ahsan, on several occasions, had expressed his reservations about appearing before Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry owing to his involvement in the lawyers’ movement.
However, PM’s spokesperson said today that Ahsan has agreed to represent Gilani in the case.
Earlier, the bench hearing the NRO implementation case had observed that PM Gilani had failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s order issued on December 16, 2009, and issued a contempt of court notice to him.
The contempt of court law envisages that, after providing Gilani with a preliminary hearing on January 19, the court may fix a date for framing a charge against him and decide the matter on that very date.
Contempt notice against Gilani challenged in SC
A petition was filed on Tuesday in the Lahore Registry of the Supreme Court challenging the contempt of court notice issued to Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani during the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case hearing.
The petitioner, Barrister Zafarullah, argued that the apex court has violated Article 248 (1), according to which, the prime minister remains immune like the president and a contempt notice cannot be issued to him.
Zafarullah also said that the court cannot force the premier to write a letter to Swiss authorities.
The barrister also asked the court that the notice should be taken back.
The announcement came after the PPP leader met with PM Gilani on Tuesday.
Ahsan, on several occasions, had expressed his reservations about appearing before Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry owing to his involvement in the lawyers’ movement.
However, PM’s spokesperson said today that Ahsan has agreed to represent Gilani in the case.
Earlier, the bench hearing the NRO implementation case had observed that PM Gilani had failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s order issued on December 16, 2009, and issued a contempt of court notice to him.
The contempt of court law envisages that, after providing Gilani with a preliminary hearing on January 19, the court may fix a date for framing a charge against him and decide the matter on that very date.
Contempt notice against Gilani challenged in SC
A petition was filed on Tuesday in the Lahore Registry of the Supreme Court challenging the contempt of court notice issued to Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani during the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case hearing.
The petitioner, Barrister Zafarullah, argued that the apex court has violated Article 248 (1), according to which, the prime minister remains immune like the president and a contempt notice cannot be issued to him.
Zafarullah also said that the court cannot force the premier to write a letter to Swiss authorities.
The barrister also asked the court that the notice should be taken back.
Earlier, Attorney-General Maulvi Anwarul Haq told the Supreme Court that he did not get any instructions from the government in response to the six options put forward by the apex court in the NRO implementation case.
A seven-judge bench of the apex court, presided over by Justice Nasirul Mulk, was hearing the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case.
The attorney-general said that he had informed all concerned authorities about the court's directives about writing letter to Swiss officials but did not get any response from them.
At this Justice Nasirul Mulk observed that the attorney general was not to convey the orders but to get instructions from the concerned officials about writing letter to the Swiss officials.
Justice Mulk directed the AG to proceed with his arguments over the six scenarios put forward by the apex court.
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa of the SC bench assailed the attorney-general over presenting the case without getting a response from the government. "You should not have arrived today without instructions from the respondents when it was clearly directed in the last hearing," he said. He said comments were made on the judgment of the court without reading it and whether it should be considered by the court that the officials were not prepared to say anything and the court may issue the orders as it deems appropriate.
In response, the attorney general said he cannot say anything.
Justice Nasirul Mulk said the attorney general was given two tasks about NAB and writing letters to the Swiss authorities and directed to get instructions and inform the court. The attorney general said he remained in touch till 2am with the officials and was told that the matter was under consideration.
Justice Asif Khosa said this gives the impression that no one wants to appear before the court. He said media in its reports said the court declared the prime minister as dishonest while the court order stated that apparently the prime minister has not done honesty to his oath.
The court gave 20 minutes to the attorney general to get instructions from the government. Despite the 20 minutes break the attorney general could not present government's view point after which the court issued contempt notice to the prime minister and fixed hearing for the 19th of January.
"In these circumstances, we are left with no option, as a first step, to issue a show cause notice," the notice issued by the seven-member bench stated. "The prime minister should appear personally in the court on Jan 19."
Under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan, a court shall have power to punish any person who, abuses, interferes with, or obstructs the process of the court (Supreme Court or a High Court) in any way or disobeys any order of the court.
Law Minister Maula Bux Chandio said that the government would consult lawyers with respect to the court's notice and that whatever would be done would be done in accordance with the law and constitution.
Moreover, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Chairman Fasih Bukhari apologised unconditionally to the court.
Justice Khosa observed that the court's orders were not being taken seriously. Earlier in the day, the court had adjourned the hearing after it was informed that the attorney-general was at the Islamabad High Court building for a hearing of the commission probing the memo scandal.
Gilani second PM summoned by SC after Nawaz Sharif
Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani is the second prime minister in the history of the country to have been summoned by the Supreme Court. He has been asked by the seven member bench of the apex court to personally appear on 19th January.
Earlier Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah had summoned Mian Nawaz Sharif in the court during his second tenure as Prime Minister in 1997.
The contempt notice has been issued by the Supreme Court after refusal by the government to write letter to the Swiss officials for reopening of corruption cases.
Giving six options to the federal government on defying its December 16, 2009, order on the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), the court questioned that as to why any of those options should not be exercised against it.
“This court has already shown a lot of grace and magnanimity in the matter and has demonstrated a lot of patience and restrain over the last two years, but in the present dismal and most unfortunate state of affairs the court has been left with no other option but to take appropriate actions in order to uphold and maintain the dignity of this court and to salvage and restore the delicately poised constitutional balance in accordance with the norms of the constitutional democracy. We are conscious that the actions we propose to take are quite unpleasant but maintaining the necessary constitutional poise and balance is part of our duties, particularly when we have made an oath before God to preserve, protect and defend the constitution.”
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, who authored the judgement, held that the obstinate and contumacious resistance, failure or refusal of the chief executive of the federation, i.e. the prime minister to completely obey, carry out or execute the directions issued by this court in the NRO case reflects, at least prima facie, may not be an “honest” person on account of his not being honest to the oath of his office and seemingly he may not be an “ameen” due to his persistent betrayal of the trust reposed in him as a person responsible for preserving, protecting and defending the constitution and also on account of allowing his personal political interest to influence his official conduct and decisions.
The Supreme Court said it was “dismayed” over the “brazen and blatant failure” of the government to implement court orders.
The court noted that the co-chairperson of the said political party, who is the president of Pakistan, the prime minister and the federal minister for law had allowed loyalty to a political party and its decisions to outweigh and outrun their loyalty to the state and their “inviolable obligation” to obey the constitution and all its commands.
Option No 1: The Court has an option to record a finding in the above mentioned regards and it may hand down a declaration to that effect in terms of clause (f) of Article 62(1) of the constitution which finding or declaration may have the effect of a permanent clog on the prime minister’s qualification for election to or being chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or a provincial assembly.
Somewhat similar oaths had also been made by the co-chairperson of the relevant political party before entering upon the office of the president and the federal minister for law, justice and human rights division before entering upon the office of a federal minister and apparent breaches of their oaths may also entail the same consequences.
Option No 2: The proceedings may be initiated against the prime minister, the federal minister and secretary for law, justice for committing contempt of this court by persistently, obstinately and contumaciously resisting, failing or refusing to implement court directions.
Option No 3: In exercise of its powers under the constitution, the Court may appoint a commission to execute the relevant parts of the judgement.
Option No 4: The court noted that in the present proceedings nobody has so far raised the issue pertaining to the protections contemplated by Article 248 of the constitution, yet if anybody likely to be affected by exercise of these options by this court wishes to be heard on that question then an opportunity may be afforded to him in that respect before exercise of any of these options.
Option No 5: It is a statutory duty of the NAB chairman to proceed against any person prima facie involved in misuse of authority while holding a public office. The court noted that such inaction on his part in dereliction of his statutory duty prima facie amounts to misconduct attracting the last part of section 6(b)(i) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 dealing with removal of the chairman from his office.
Option No 6: The trichotomy and separation of powers between the legislature, the judiciary and the executive is very delicately poised and if in a given situation the executive is bent upon defying a final judicial verdict and is ready to go to any limit in such defiance then instead of insisting upon the executive to implement the judicial verdict and thereby running the risk of bringing down the constitutional structure itself this court may exercise judicial restraint and leave the matter to the better judgement of the people of the country or their representatives in parliament to appropriately deal with the delinquent.
The attorney general of Pakistan was directed to inform all such persons about the passage of this order and also about the next date of hearing.
The court recommended the chief justice to consider hearing of these matters on the next hearing by a larger bench and directed the AGP, the law secretary, the NAB chairman and prosecutor general to appear in person on January 16.
Six options:
* President, PM and law minister may be disqualified for breaches of their oaths
* Contempt proceedings may be initiated against PM, law minister and law secretary
* Court may appoint a commission to execute NRO judgement
* Grants a hearing opportunity to those who might be affected from exercise of six options
* NAB chairman may be removed from his office for disobeying court orders
* Court may exercise judicial restraint and leave the matter to people or their representatives in parliament
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry constituted a three-member commission which will be headed by Chief Justice Balochistan High Court Qazi Faiz Esa, while Chief Justice Islamabad High Court Iqbal Hameedur Rehman, Chief Justice Sindh High Court Musheer Alam and District and Sessions Judge Islamabad Raja Jawad Abbas would serve as members.
The court restrained former Ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani from travelling abroad. The court also directed the commission to investigate the case within a period of four weeks.
The chief justice directed the registrar to put up in his chamber the replies of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani for an order on holding of press conference by Dr Babar Awan.
Awan had earlier held a press conference along with two ministers of Pakistan Peoples Party and denounced the court’s order. In reply to which, the chief justice had termed the press conference as contemptuous. An appropriate order shall be given after a decision in the chamber, the chief justice added.
Heading the nine-judge bench, the chief justice said the December 1 order from the court on linking Haqqani’s travel to court permission will stay intact.
The chief justice also ordered Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq to take steps for securing the Blackberry conversation from the mobile phone manufacturer Research In Motion (RIM) and place it before the commission. The Canadian High Commissioner had been directed to cooperate in securing the communication.
All the nine judges had unanimously agreed to the order.
Earlie, the chief justice said that that the court has not attributed anything to Haqqani. He said that the court is not against anyone.
The chief justice said that the court has the authority to intervene if the state has violated rights in the Memogate case. He said that the Parliamentary Committee on National Security cannot stop the court from investigating the Memogate scandal.
Chief Justice Chaudhry observed that anyone who files a petition in the court does not necessarily do that for political interests and that that person might be an informant.
He made this statement in a reply to Haqqani’s Counsel Asma Jehangir’s earlier statement that the Memogate scandal was a ‘political issue’ and that anyone could try to mislead the court. She had questioned the maintainability of the petitions filed in the court.
Sharif’s lawyer Rasheed A Rizvi has compiled all the evidences.
Rizvi told the court that the procedures of law will be implemented in a better way in the Supreme Court rather than the parliamentary committee. He added that on one hand, the government has termed the memorandum as a piece of paper and on the other hand, they have called for an inquiry.
“He should have known who he was supposed to report to,” the federal government stated this in a reply submitted to the Supreme Court in the form of an affidavit. The nine-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, had asked the federal government on December 19 to “accept or deny” the statements filed by Kayani, Pasha and others in the memo case.
The reply said the COAS did not immediately inform the prime minister of his meeting with the ISI chief on October 24 with regard to the details on the memo. However, he chose to divulge the details to the prime minister on November 13.
Both Kayani and Pasha have taken an entirely different position to that of the government before the nine-member bench of the court on Memogate.
The generals insist that the memo is authentic and needs to be thoroughly investigated, while the government has termed it a conspiracy and urged the SC to dismiss petitions outright.
According to a private television channel, the permission was denied by a two-judge bench of the SHC in response to a petition filed by the PTI.
Moreover, the court directed the party to contact concerned authorities in order to find an alternative venue to hold its public meeting.
Earlier, Sindh Home Minister Manzoor Wasan had said the PTI could hold its meeting anywhere and anytime in Karachi.
The Sindh High Court (SHC) had ordered Ahmed’s release on Friday after the chief law officer of the province had failed to defend the grounds of detention.
A large number of party workers arrived at the jail to greet the MQM-H chief on his release.
Ahmed met the Jail Superintendant after his release and completed the formalities for his release.
Express News reports that the District East Police force has been deployed for security. Around 22 police mobiles, six Rangers vehicles and five private cars were reportedly part of the convoy which was deployed to transport Ahmed.
Ahmed was transported in DIG East’s bulletproof vehicle.
His release orders were issued at around 2:00pm today.
The MQM-H chief was detained twice under the MPO act by the Sindh Government.
An anti-terrorism court had earlier formally indicted Afaq Ahmed in an alleged case of detaining an officer of Karachi Development Authority at his party’s headquarters, Baitul Hamza, in 2001. The case against Ahmed was kept on dormant file and surfaced only recently after he was admitted bail in all six cases pending trial in courts.
Afaq had been behind bars since April 2004.
According to documents at district court, in last four months, court issued arrest warrant of 102 women drug pushers for not appearing before court after getting bails in the cases of narcotics registered against them under section 9-A, 9-B and 9-C (Drug Act, using and selling charas, ganjha, opium and heroin).
Besides, in 2010 369 cases had registered against women in drug act, while in current year, 356 women have been booked for using drugs and selling under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Kamran Bashrat Mufti Court issued 31 arrest warrants, ASJ Wajahat Hussain issued 22, ASJ Yaar Muhammad Gondal issued 19, Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Kashif Qayyom issued 16 arrest warrants, court of Judicial Magistrate Naeem Shoukat issued eight arrest warrants, Civil Judge Rai Liyqat Kharal issued six arrest warrants of women drug pusher for not appearing before court after getting bails in the cases of narcotics under section 9-A, B and C.
As per law, if a person involved in criminal activity and is granted bail before or after arrest from relevant court, the offender is bound to appear before court in every hearing of case against him until the court disposes of case.
If the offender fails to do so in first hearing, court issues summon for appearing. If even then the alleged did not appear before court again issues summon to allege and if the person did not appear after three summons then judicial officer is bound to issued non-bailable arrest warrant of accused accordance to law.
According to court official, the punishment in using of drugs and selling was same for men and women but women who were involved in that matter were given advantage according to Women Protection Act 2006, in which the criminal women seek sympathy on humanities grounds and bail is granted.
The court official said mostly in that cases police used to assist the criminal in getting bail by introducing different tactics and disfiguring the FIR’s.
After getting bail the drug pusher women avoids appearing before court because they are the members of established drug rackets and are aware of the tricks to tackle the law and relevant authorities.
Talking to Express News 24/7 Federal police spokesman Muhammad Naeem said in several cases female carriers were directly trapped by groups of traffickers, there were also cases when male family members had offered services of their female members without their knowledge or consent.
A two-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry also ordered the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to hold meetings with the social welfare departments and eunuchs at divisional or district level for registering them at voters.
Chief secretaries of all the provinces were asked to cooperate with NADRA for the issuance of National Identity Cards (NICs) and possession of their property.
Expressing its annoyance over the Balochistan government for not taking steps regarding the welfare of eunuchs, the court asked the Social Welfare Department secretary that why the court should not take action against him.
During the hearing, applicant Dr Aslam Khakhi requested the court to direct the government for allocating jobs quota for the eunuchs. He said that people had taken interest in their welfare after the court’s intervention.
He said that three female students of Quad-I- Azam University were writing thesis on the issues of eunuchs.
A eunuch from Karachi told the bench that she did two masters in different subjects and now doing job in the Cantonment Board for collection of the taxes.
She informed the court that despite achieving the target of tax the collection her salary was not increased. She also mentioned that 16 more eunuchs were doing job in the same department on contract basis. The court directed the department concerned to examine their job regularization cases.
ECP Joint Secretary Shair Afghan told the court that votes of 106 eunuchs had been registered and further steps were also being taken to register their votes in the country.
The court adjourned the hearing for two weeks.
Blagojevich, who turns 55 on Saturday, must serve at least 85 per cent of the sentence or about 12 years before being released under the sentencing guidelines. He was also fined $20,000.
He was convicted of seeking jobs and campaign contributions in exchange for state government action. Blagojevich, a Democrat who was ousted from office in 2009, had asked US District Judge James B. Zagel for mercy, saying he was “unbelievably sorry.”
Zagel said before sentencing that he accepted Blagojevich’s apology, but “it comes too late.”
Zagel disputed the defence theory that Blagojevich was misled by his staff.
“The governor was not marched along the criminal path by his staff,” Zagel said. “He marched them and ruined a few of their careers.”
From the time of his arrest until his conviction, he launched a national campaign to proclaim his innocence, appearing on television talk and entertainment shows, even being a contestant on Donald Trump’s “Celebrity Apprentice.”
Wednesday was the first time Blagojevich expressed contrition, telling the judge he was “unbelievably sorry,” but stopping short of admitting guilt.
“I’m here convicted of crimes,” Blagojevich said. “The jury decided I was guilty. I’m accepting of it. I acknowledge it and of course I’m unbelievably sorry for it.”
During the trial, prosecutors presented evidence suggesting Blagojevich sought $1.5 million in campaign contributions from supporters of Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., in exchange for appointing him to the Senate seat. They also said Blagojevich sought a cabinet post or a high-paying Washington job in exchange for appointing Obama’s choice to the Senate seat, Valerie Jarrett, now a White House aide.
He was also convicted of attempting to shake down the head of a children’s hospital for campaign cash in exchange for authorising an increase in doctor reimbursement fees, and shaking down the head of Illinois racetracks in exchange for approving legislation favourable to the industry.
Federal authorities, who had been taping Blagojevich’s profanity-laced conversations with aides, arrested him in December 2008, before he could complete the crime, prosecutors have argued.
Blagojevich was tried twice — first in August 2010, when he was convicted of one charge of lying to investigators and jurors deadlocked on 23 other counts. After a second trial this year, he was convicted of 17 of 20 counts.
Blagojevich must report to prison on February 16.
His predecessor in the governor’s office, Republican George Ryan, is currently in prison on corruption charges.
She had earlier talked about the judiciary in the same manner as according to her, it also “does not entertain any moral authority because its decisions are not acted upon”.
Asked in an interview in Samaa TV programme Zer-e-Behas hosted by Pakistan Today Editor Arif Nizami about the reason she had decided to represent Husain Haqqani in the SC, she said she had earlier been approached by Haqqani to plead his case which she declined, but subsequently changed her mind when no lawyer was ready to take up the case. Asked to substantiate her point why the judiciary lacked moral authority and was media-driven, Asma said the judiciary ran on the principle of moral authority which was the basis of its power. She also said there was no similarity between the Watergate scandal and the memo issue. “This is called showing way to others.”
She said because the judiciary was not an elected institution, it should avoid indulging in controversies. To her “the standard should be the same for everyone. If some Allah Ditta approaches the judiciary, he should get the same treatment meted out to Nawaz Sharif.”
Asked to react on Tariq Khosa’s reluctance to head the commission, she said it was a welcome move. “Khosa has earned more reverence in my eyes because he did not want to earn a bad name for himself.” She said she had never had any doubts about Khosa’s integrity, and that it was not correct on the SC’s part to name its favorite investigators, no matter what their level of integrity was.
The PML-N lawmaker appeared before the jury in hearing of Rs6 billion land scam case where the judge refused to extend his interim bail, rejecting his plea, after which Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) officials arrested Aqeel from the court premises.
Speaking to newsmen outside the court afterwards, the MNA’s lawyer Babar Butt said Aqeel was not only owner of the land but there was another share holder with him who had got stay order of the court.
Butt said the lawmaker has taken oath in the court to withdraw from 23-kanal land.
The MNA, who had been given 14 extensions in the case, was allegedly involved in the Rs6 billion corruption in several land purchases by the NPF along with other accused.
The people involved in the current plight of the department should be handcuffed, he said heading a two-member SC bench hearing a case against non-payment of pensions and salaries to the Railways employees.
He said nobody can occupy the lands of the department and the measures are afoot to take back the possession of the captured lands of the department.
Meantime, former Railways minister Sheikh Rashid said the Federal Railways Minister Bilour is pressuring to part with the case, adding there is no hope other than Supreme Court in order to save institutions.
The court also directed chief secretaries of all provinces to take these lands back from people illegally in control of them.
Later on the apex court adjourned the hearing for three weeks, issuing directives to submit report of forensic audit in the next hearing.
"He has absolutely no sense of remorse," said judge Michael Pastor, after giving a scathing summary of the case against the 58-year-old doctor.
"There are those that feel that Dr Murray is a saint. There are those that feel that Dr Murray is the devil. He's neither. He's a human being. He stands convicted of the death of another human being," said Pastor.
But he said: "Michael Jackson died not because of an isolated one-off occurrence or incident. He died because of a totality of circumstances which are directly attributable to Dr Murray."
The judge said he agreed that Murray should have to pay restitution to Jackson's estate and children, but said the amount would be decided at a later hearing -- scheduled for January 23.
Prosecution had asked for Murray to pay $100 million to compensate Jackson's family for the lost earnings the singer would have made from a 50-show series of comeback concerts he was planning when he died.
Murray was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter on November 7 for administering to Jackson an overdose of the powerful clinic anesthetic, propofol, in a bid to help him sleep.
The medic admitted he had given the drug to the star for up to two months before his death.
Express News 24/7 correspondent reported that the Registrar Office of the apex court accepted the petition after scrutiny. A cause-list is expected to be drawn by the end of this week, after which a date will be scheduled for a hearing.
In his petition, Nawaz requested that the court summon the respondents, including President Asif Ali Zardari, Haqqani, Mansoor Ijaz, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and Inter-Services Intelligence chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha, and demand an explanation.
During last week’s rally in Faisalabad, the party leader had said:
“If there is not an impartial inquiry into this event with the satisfaction of the people of this country, we will definitely take it up in the Supreme Court,” Sharif had said.
The memogate scandal began when Admiral Mike Mullen confirmed the existence of a controversial memo, allegedly sent by President Zardari via a trusted source. Former ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani resigned after being involved in the controversy.
However, not only did counsel Babar Awan fail to ‘make a case,’ he failed to reach the venue. The Advocate on Record, Mehmood A Sheikh, told the court that Awan could not attend the proceedings because of some “family commitments,” requesting that the hearing be adjourned.
Annoyed by Awan’s absence, the chief justice said “all judges have families, but the 17-member full court is sitting for five days to hear the federation’s plea.”
The bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, directed the government to implement the verdict in letter and spirit without any further delay.
The court asked Law Secretary Masood Chishti to read out the documents which Babar Awan had created a hue and cry about in Thursday’s hearing. But Chishti requested that the hearing be adjourned so that Awan could read out the documents himself.
“It was your petition, you drafted it and your counsel is absent today. You insisted on presenting these documents, despite the court’s rejection, and you are refusing to read them,” the CJP remarked.
When the court demanded that the secretary read out the documents, he read out one page and refused to read further.
Justice Jawad S Khawaja said: “You may not argue the case, but read the documents. You wanted the court to see them.” However, Chishti kept requesting for an adjournment.
Defying the court’s orders means to go behind bars, the chief justice reminded Chisti, to which he said: “I have gone to jail and the post of federal secretary is not important to me. I am happy being a lawyer.”
Later, the court directed Attorney General of Pakistan (AJP) Maulvi Anwarul Haq to read out all the documents, but they pertained to cases against President Asif Ali Zardari and Benazir Bhutto pending before Swiss courts. The document contained letters of Ehtesab Bureau (the NAB’s forerunner) chief Saifur Rehman and ex-AGP Chaudhry Farooq to the Swiss authorities.
The documents, made public for the first time, had the names of PPP founder Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, his wife Begum Nusrat Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari.
As the AGP read out the letters, Chishti interrupted and requested the bench to allow him to read the documents, but this time the chief justice snubbed him and asked him to sit down.
“First, you refused to read the documents and now you are saying you want to read them. What is your problem?” said Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, adding, “We did not want the documents to be read out here, but yesterday Mr Babar created a scene.”
He said the court was reluctant to accept the documents only to avoid publicising the names of ‘honorable personalities’, but now they have been made public.
Justice Khwaja asked the AGP how the documents were relevant to the case, while Justice Saqib Nisar said the documents pertained to investigations held between 1997 and 1999, adding that the NRO was issued 10 years after. Justice Nasirul Mulk remarked that the court was not closing the doors of justice but avoiding insult of honorable personalities.
Aitzaz says verdict will not hurt president
Aitzaz Ahsan, former SCBA president and Pakistan Peoples Party member, said President Asif Ali Zardari is exempt from any lawsuit under article 248 of the constitution and ruled out any chances of a rift between the federation and the judiciary over the verdict.
He said the court’s decisions should be accepted and implemented, adding that although implementation of the NRO verdict has been delayed, it is unfair to say that the court’s decision has not been obeyed at all.
Aitzaz added that he was unable to understand why Babar Awan wanted to present the documents in court.
Speaking to journalists outside the court, newly-elected President Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Yasin Azad said the bar association will support the judiciary in case the orders of the apex court are violated.
