Court awards 24-hour prison sentence to Shahid Orakzai
December 30, 2014
PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Monday awarded 24 hours sentence in prison to a citizen Shahid Orakzai after he failed to prove allegations levelled by him against the PHC chief justice and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in a contempt of court petition.
The judge heading the bench observed that the petitioner had committed contempt of court.The police took Shahid Orakzai into custody after the PHC single bench headed by Justice Yahya Afridi announced the sentence. Before announcing the sentence, the court had given a chance to Shahid Orakzai, a freelance journalist, to tender an apology in the open court for levelling baseless allegations against the PHC chief justice or withdraw his contempt petition. However, he refused to avail the chance and remained firm on his stance and allegations levelled in his contempt of court petition.
The bench in its short order stated that, “The contempt of court petition against the PHC chief justice and prime minister filed by Shahid Orakzai is dismissed. However, by filing this petition the petitioner committed contempt of court for his contemptuous act and thus this court proceeded against the petitioner. At this stage the court asked the petitioner for quitting his stance in the contempt petition and tender apology for his stance, but he refused to apologise or withdraw from his stance. Thus Shahid Orakzai committed contempt of court and was sentenced to 24 hours in prison.”
Arguing his case, Shahid Orakzai claimed that on September 5 the respondent prime minister indirectly interfered with the working of this court by secretly manoeuvring the murder case of the petitioner’s elder brother, Major (r) Khalid Saeed Orakzai, which has been pending since 1997.
He submitted that on September 1, 2014 a single bench of Justice Qaiser Rashid heard the case, but adjourned it to September 5 because the defence counsel was absent due to the strike called by the Pakistan Bar Council. On September 5, he said the PHC Chief Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel decided to shift the case to his court and maintained that shifting of the case was an internal matter of the PHC.
Shahid Orakzai claimed that the criminal petition would have been decided in favour of the petitioner on September 5 if the case was not transferred and indefinitely adjourned by the respondent chief justice.
He stated that in view of the circumstances the transfer of the murder case was a naked interference in terms of clause (1) (a) of Article 204 of the Constitution and section 3 of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003.
The petitioner said that neither the Supreme Court nor the high court had ever denied the fact that the murder in 1997 was a direct consequence of a monetary dispute resulting from a 1993 horse-trading deal between the petitioner and the respondent prime minister involving payment of 10.5 million rupees to Fata MNAs.
During the course of hearing, Justice Yahya Afridi questioned the petitioner to mention any rule or provision of the Peshawar High Court under which the transfer of a case from one bench to another or fixing it for hearing in the court of the chief justice amounted to contempt of court. Shahid Orakzai failed to pinpoint any such rule or judgment in favour of his petition.
Shahid Orakzai also asked the bench whether the prime minister could interfere with the proceedings of a murder case being heard by the high court of any province and whether under the Criminal Procedure Code the chief justice could transfer a murder case from any bench in violation of the court’s order.
Justice Yahya Afridi observed that fixation of a case from one bench to another was a regular practice in the PHC. He added that this practice didn’t occur in the Lahore High Court where the bench issuing notice in a case continued to hear and decide it.
Shahid Orakzai claimed that manoeuvering had been made at all stages in his case and this is the reason he had always highlighted his objection to the benches. He submitted that he wanted to permanently stop interference in the judicial proceedings through the contempt of court petition.
Barrister Waqar, a former deputy advocate general who assisted the court as amicus curiae (friend of the court) with regard to the questions raised in the contempt of court petition, submitted that the petition was non-maintainable. He cited the Supreme Court full bench decision in which the apex court had declared that the high court’s chief justice was independent in transferring and placing the cases before one or another bench.
He submitted that the transfer of case from one bench to another was a regular practice in the PHC and thus the PHC chief justice didn’t commit any contempt of court.To the court’s query, he submitted that the same court can sentence the petitioner for making baseless allegations against the respondents.
The judge heading the bench observed that the petitioner had committed contempt of court.The police took Shahid Orakzai into custody after the PHC single bench headed by Justice Yahya Afridi announced the sentence. Before announcing the sentence, the court had given a chance to Shahid Orakzai, a freelance journalist, to tender an apology in the open court for levelling baseless allegations against the PHC chief justice or withdraw his contempt petition. However, he refused to avail the chance and remained firm on his stance and allegations levelled in his contempt of court petition.
The bench in its short order stated that, “The contempt of court petition against the PHC chief justice and prime minister filed by Shahid Orakzai is dismissed. However, by filing this petition the petitioner committed contempt of court for his contemptuous act and thus this court proceeded against the petitioner. At this stage the court asked the petitioner for quitting his stance in the contempt petition and tender apology for his stance, but he refused to apologise or withdraw from his stance. Thus Shahid Orakzai committed contempt of court and was sentenced to 24 hours in prison.”
Arguing his case, Shahid Orakzai claimed that on September 5 the respondent prime minister indirectly interfered with the working of this court by secretly manoeuvring the murder case of the petitioner’s elder brother, Major (r) Khalid Saeed Orakzai, which has been pending since 1997.
He submitted that on September 1, 2014 a single bench of Justice Qaiser Rashid heard the case, but adjourned it to September 5 because the defence counsel was absent due to the strike called by the Pakistan Bar Council. On September 5, he said the PHC Chief Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel decided to shift the case to his court and maintained that shifting of the case was an internal matter of the PHC.
Shahid Orakzai claimed that the criminal petition would have been decided in favour of the petitioner on September 5 if the case was not transferred and indefinitely adjourned by the respondent chief justice.
He stated that in view of the circumstances the transfer of the murder case was a naked interference in terms of clause (1) (a) of Article 204 of the Constitution and section 3 of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003.
The petitioner said that neither the Supreme Court nor the high court had ever denied the fact that the murder in 1997 was a direct consequence of a monetary dispute resulting from a 1993 horse-trading deal between the petitioner and the respondent prime minister involving payment of 10.5 million rupees to Fata MNAs.
During the course of hearing, Justice Yahya Afridi questioned the petitioner to mention any rule or provision of the Peshawar High Court under which the transfer of a case from one bench to another or fixing it for hearing in the court of the chief justice amounted to contempt of court. Shahid Orakzai failed to pinpoint any such rule or judgment in favour of his petition.
Shahid Orakzai also asked the bench whether the prime minister could interfere with the proceedings of a murder case being heard by the high court of any province and whether under the Criminal Procedure Code the chief justice could transfer a murder case from any bench in violation of the court’s order.
Justice Yahya Afridi observed that fixation of a case from one bench to another was a regular practice in the PHC. He added that this practice didn’t occur in the Lahore High Court where the bench issuing notice in a case continued to hear and decide it.
Shahid Orakzai claimed that manoeuvering had been made at all stages in his case and this is the reason he had always highlighted his objection to the benches. He submitted that he wanted to permanently stop interference in the judicial proceedings through the contempt of court petition.
Barrister Waqar, a former deputy advocate general who assisted the court as amicus curiae (friend of the court) with regard to the questions raised in the contempt of court petition, submitted that the petition was non-maintainable. He cited the Supreme Court full bench decision in which the apex court had declared that the high court’s chief justice was independent in transferring and placing the cases before one or another bench.
He submitted that the transfer of case from one bench to another was a regular practice in the PHC and thus the PHC chief justice didn’t commit any contempt of court.To the court’s query, he submitted that the same court can sentence the petitioner for making baseless allegations against the respondents.
