SC accepts Vawda, Kamal’s unconditional apologies

F.P. Report

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court (SC) on Friday accepted Senator Faisal Vawda and Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) leader Mustafa Kamal’s unconditional apologies in contempt of court case.

The Supreme Court (SC) had issued contempt of court notices to independent Senator Faisal Vawda and MQM-Pakistan MNA Mustafa Kamal over anti-judiciary rhetoric. Senator Faisal Vawda on June 26 tendered an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court of Pakistan in contempt of court case.

Vawda submitted a new response to the court, stating that he leaves himself at the mercy of the Supreme Court. Senator Faisal Vawda in his earlier response refused to tender an unconditional apology to Supreme Court over a contempt of court notice.

“The press conference was not aimed at insulting the judiciary and it was meant for the betterment of the country,” Faisal Vawda said in his first reply to the court. It is important to mention here that the apex took suo moto notice of press conferences held by Senator Faisal Vawda and Kamal wherein they demanded evidence of interference in the judiciary.

The top court then issued notices to both leaders and asked them to submit their response before the court. Where Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) leader Mustafa Kamal tendered an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court for his remarks against the judiciary in the same case. In a presser, Senator Faisal Vawda criticized the Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges. “15 days have passed but no details were shared by the IHC judges to support the claims of alleged interference,” the Senator said in response to the IHC judges’ letter, alleging interference in the judicial affairs by the security agencies.

“Accusing someone will not work, the evidence will have to be given in the court,” Faisal Vawda said while addressing a press conference in Islamabad on Wednesday. The former federal minister asked the IHC judge Babar Sattar to bring evidence of interference and. He also demanded the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) to interfere in this matter.