Islamabad: Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday has deferred the decision of indicting former Chief Judge of Gilgit Baltistan Rana Shamim in contempt of court case.
During the hearing, the IHC has again sought original affidavit of the chief judge. The parties are free to record their response on Rana Shamim’s statement, the court remarked.
The attorney general said the ex-CJ had deliberately leaked his affidavit, adding that the proceedings regarding indicting him can be resumed after submission of original affidavit.
Subsequently, the court has adjourned the hearing till December 20.
Previously, IHC stated that the responses of all parties, including Rana Shamim, were unsatisfactory.
Earlier, IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah had instructed Rana Shamim to submit his original affidavit by December 13 and warned that if he fails to produce the documents, he will be prosecuted in this case.
The IHC judge asked Rana Shamin whether he would accept the contents of the affidavit. He said he had not seen the affidavit filed in this court because the original was locked in his locker in the UK.
Attorney general said it is strange that ex-CJ doesn’t remember what is in the affidavit. Every day of this court is important as it is the “season” of leaks, he added.
It is to be mentioned here that the high court had taken notice of revelations leveled by former chief judge of Gilgit Baltistan Rana Muhammad Shamim regarding PML-N leaders Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Nawaz and summoned all the parties and Attorney General Khalid Javed Khan in personal capacity.
Former CJ of Gilgit Baltistan was also served with contempt of court notice.
IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah remarked, “I trust each and every judge of the court. The judges can also be made accountable and criticized. An environment of disbelief will prevail in society if people stop trusting the courts.”
Athar Minallah told him that he also faces strong opposition from social media. He further instructed the reporter to read the title of his story. IHC CJ asked where the former judge had notarized the affidavit because it was not part of any record of this court.