Imran Ammar
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday accepted the apology of Senator Faisal Vawda and Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) lawmaker Mustafa Kamal and withdrew the contempt of court notice issued to them.
According to the court order read by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the two MPs – Senator Faisal Vawda and Member of National Assembly (MNA) Mustafa Kamal – realized that the words they had used were inappropriate.
“They have now withdrawn their statement and tendered an unreserved apology to the court,” the order said.
Vawda tendered an unconditional apology to the apex court in the contempt case on Wednesday, saying he had left himself at the mercy of the apex court. Earlier this month, Kamal also demanded an unconditional apology for his remarks against the judiciary.
The court further wrote about the withdrawal of the case presented to both politicians with regard to their consideration of the matter and apology.
During the hearing, the chief justice remarked: “In Article 66 – freedom of speech in Parliament – of the Constitution, you can stand up and speak in Parliament.”
CJP Isa ordered the two politicians to “be careful in future” when they mention the judiciary. “We respect you and we hope you respect us. Humiliating each other will harm the public,” the chief justice said.
The CJP told Vawda and Kamal that Article 66 protects legislators from speaking in Parliament and not outside it.
The court’s decision comes more than a month after it issued contempt of court notices to both politicians after they held tough press conferences against the judiciary in May, with Vawda saying no charges can be brought without evidence and Kamal seeking to demonstrate ethical standards for judges as justice can be “only bought”.
Their statements came after six judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) wrote a letter to the members of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) pointing out the intelligence agency’s interference in judicial affairs. Politicos also pointed to the dual citizenship of the IHC judge.
Shortly after their tirade, the SC swung into action against the leaders and took suo motu notice.
“However, we expect them to stand by their statements made in court because if there is another offense, a simple apology may not be acceptable to this court,” the order said.
In its order, the court mentioned issuing notices to 24 channels that telecast Vawda’s press conference and 28 channels that telecast Kamal’s press conference live.
He added that he was calling on the channels to give an explanation within two weeks as to why they should not be prosecuted for contempt of court.
“Faisal Siddiqui claims to represent 26 channels and they filed a ‘preliminary reply’. These documents are not signed by any representatives of the said TV channels but have been submitted under the signature of Faisal Siddiqui and Usman Mirza,” the order said.
The order contended that the court cannot consider the same as the responses offered by the said channels.
“We have, however, considered the contents of the same and the said answers, which are almost identical in nature, have referred to the fact that they are actionable only when malice is shown” and that “it is a settled principle of the law of contempt, that malice must be proved “.
The court added, “They further go on to state that it is broadcasting that they ‘broadcast live press conferences in public interest as it is their right and duty under Articles 19 and 19-A’.
The order further stated: “Even if we assume that the documents which have been filed are in response to the notices, the said television channels have justified their telecast of the said press conferences despite the fact that during the hearing Faisal Siddiqui admitted that the contents of one of the press conferences conference constituted prima facie contempt.”
He therefore added that the defense adopted is as follows: (a) that a television channel is not liable for anything it broadcasts if the same has been said by another, (b) that there must be intent to disparage and (c) that it is their right and duty to do so .
The court said that the explanation, in its considered opinion, was not prima facie justifiable and that it was “now compelled to issue a notice to file a reply”.
“As the remaining channels have not responded to the notices, we are also issuing contempt notices to them as to why they should not be prosecuted for contempt of court,” he added.
The court said that during the hearing, it was looking into whether the TV channels aired any apology, but they did not.
“The same press conferences were either rebroadcast or parts of the broadcast.
The channels, which are undoubtedly commercial enterprises, earn money from their broadcasts, therefore, along with the answers, they should also indicate whether the press conferences were preceded by advertisements, their number and the amount earned from them, and the same at the conclusion of the same press conference.”
