ISLAMABAD - A prosecution witness in the contempt of court case against Federal Minister for Privatisation Daniyal Aziz admitted before the Supreme Court on Friday that he had drawn the impression from the minister’s press conference that references against the Sharif family were prepared by Monitoring Judge Justice Ijazul Ahsan.
The admission was made by a journalist Sajid Hussain, prosecution witness, before a three-judge bench headed by Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed on Thursday.
During the cross-examination, Defence Counsel Ali Raza asked the witness whether it is true that Daniyal Aziz never said that monitoring judge summoned the officials for preparing the references against the Sharif family.
The witness said that statement was given by the minister Aziz at the end of news conference so he could not pose a question to him for explaining the point. He, however, stated that he drew this impression from the news conference that references against the Sharif family were prepared by the monitoring judge and he attributed the statement to Daniyal Aziz. He added that the minister also did not deny the news item published in a Daily Urdu. The witness also produced his news report before the court, stating he was present at the press conference of September 9 of 2017. He further informed that the entire news report is written by him and no member of the newspaper edited it.
The cross-examination of prosecution witnesses has been completed in the contempt of court case against Federal Minister for Privatisation Daniyal Aziz.
Additional Attorney General Advocate Waqar Rana, who is a prosecutor in the case, produced two witnesses before the bench.
Another witness namely Haji Adam, Director General (DG) Monitoring in PEMRA, stated that he monitors the TV programmes.
He said that Daniyal Aziz addressed a press conference in the Press Information Department (PID) on September 8, 2017 while he himself watched the two clips aired on December 15 and 21 on two different private TV channels.
He informed the court that Aziz delivered a ‘contemptuous speech’ on December 19 but when he checked the record the same video clip was aired on a TV channel on December 21. However, Justice Saeed expressed his doubt that the clip of December 19 has been aired on TV channels for two days.
During cross-examining, the witness was questioned whether a complete video recording of December 15 was available to him. The witness said that he has a complete video recording but the only relevant clip was produced.
Counsel for Aziz requested the court to play the entire recording of what was telecast on December 15. On the order of court, the complete clip was played in the courtroom but the witness said he could not confirm whether it was a complete video recording or not.
The defence counsel asked the witness whether he verified the clip. To this, the witness responded that verification of the clip is not under his jurisdiction
Regarding the clip aired on another channel on December 19, the defence counsel said the clip played on the channel came from a third source. He asked the witness if this clip was verified. The witness responded that he could not state whether the video is edited before the telecast.
The top court while adjourning the trial till April 16 directed defence to submit a complete list of witnesses.
