ISLAMABAD: The independent Senator Faisal Vawda on Friday castigated the remarks by Islamabad High Court (IHC) Judge Athar Minallah, demanding evidence for being called a ‘proxy’ following the latter’s recent rhetoric against the judiciary, ARY News reported.
In a recent episode of ARY News’ program ‘Aitraaz Hai,’ Vawda asserted not to remain silent but to seek proof of this allegation, as it is his democratic right as a Pakistani national to question.
In a recent episode of ARY News’ program ‘Aitraaz Hai,’ Vawda asserted that he will not remain silent and will seek proof of the allegations against him.
He stated that it is his democratic right as a Pakistani national to question these accusations, insisting that no one should make such claims without having proof to support the allegations.
Expressing his readiness to appear before the Chief Justice on June 5, he stated that it is an honor to appear and get a chance to address before an ‘impartial bench’.
Vawda concluded by saying he would accept the Supreme Court judge’s decision and is willing to apologize if found guilty.
READ: Faisal Vawda demands evidence of interference in judiciary
Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court (SC) issued contempt of court notices to independent Senator Faisal Vawda and MQM-Pakistan MNA Mustafa Kamal over anti-judiciary rhetoric.
A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and including Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan heard the case.
During the hearing today, CJP Isa inquired from the AAG regarding whether he heard Vawda’s presser to which AAG responded that he heard some parts of the press conference.
The court then asked AGP if the content of Vawda’s presser was contemptuous.
“If a case is pending in the court, then opinion can be given,” noted the CJP adding that “much more” was said against him.
The top court then issued notices to both leaders and asked them to appear before the bench at the next hearing.
The apex took suo moto notice of a press conference held by Senator Faisal Vawda who demanded evidence of interference in the judiciary.
Leave a Comment