Staff Report
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Tuesday asked if the government had utilised its re-sources to trace those behind recording and leaking audios of conversations.
He passed these remarks as a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) resumed hearing pleas challenging the formation of a judicial commission led by Justice Qazi Faez Isa to probe audio leaks.
The five-judge bench, led by CJP Bandial, also comprised Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed.
“How and where are the audio leaks emerging from? Who is behind this?” Justice Bandial asked as the apex court took up a set of four petitions challenging the constitution of the audio leaks commission.
The petitions were moved by Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Abid Zuberi, SCBA Secretary Muqtedir Akhtar Shabbir, PTI Chairman Imran Khan, and Advocate Riaz Hanif Rahi. All of the pleas have requested the court to declare the constitution of the audio commission illegal.
The federal coalition had formed the commission on May 20 under Section 3 of the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act 2017. Led by senior puisne judge Justice Isa, the commission also comprises Balochistan High Court Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Aamer Farooq. On May 28, the top court restrained the panel from going ahead with its task. The verdict was issued by the five-member bench hearing the case. Subsequently, the government-appointed commission decided to put its proceedings on hold until the SC decided the petitions.
Last week, both the commission and the government had objected to SC proceedings.
During yesterday’s hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan read out the commission’s terms of reference (TORs).
“One of the audio leaks is related to the CJP’s mother-in-law,” he pointed out. At that, Justice Akhtar asked if the case being heard at the moment concerned the veracity of the audio leaks. Awan replied that the government had only formed a commission at this point and its purpose was to determine the authenticity of the leaks. “Is the federal government not aware of whether the audio leaks are authentic or not?” Justice Akhtar asked.
“Senior cabinet members even held press conferences on the leaks is it not true that the interior minister held a press conference?
“Some audios were even played in the press conference,” the judge noted. “Is it lawful for someone, who doesn’t know about the truth of the audio leaks, to raise objections to the bench?”
Justice Akhtar further stated that he was inquiring about the maintainability of the AGP’s appeal seeking the reconsti-tution of the bench.
“Why did the interior minister hold the press conference? Can such carelessness be shown?” he went on to ask. “Af-ter such a statement, the minister should have been removed or resigned.”
For his part, Awan asked if a minister’s statement could be considered the government’s stance on the matter. “It is not in my knowledge if someone had held a press conference,” he said.
However, Justice Akhtar asserted that the federal cabinet should have shown “collective responsibility” on such an important issue.
“A minister talking about tea is different, but here a statement was given on an important issue,” he said.
At that, the AGP asked the court to see if the interior minister’s statement was issued before May 19 or after.
“Wow, what justice with the judiciary,” the CJP quipped. “First judges were ridiculed through the audios and then it is being said that these leaks will be investigated.”
Justice Akhtar also remarked, “This is an easy way to remove any judge from a bench […] construct an audio [which includes] their name.”
He then contended that there were legal reasons behind judges recusing themselves from benches. “This option is not available for anyone to come and say that this judge can’t hear this case.”
At one point during the hearing, CJP Bandial noted that the post of the chief justice was “constitutional”.
“No one can assume the charge of CJP on the basis of an assumption. In this case, the chief justice was available but wasn’t informed about the formation of the
commission,” the top judge remarked.
“Present your arguments on these points,” he said and directed Awan to understand the law before reading out pre-vious judgments issued by the court.
Here, the AGP said he wanted to first present arguments on the constitution of the bench.
“Are you heading towards the point that three of us judges are controversial?” Justice Bandial asked. “If you go to-wards that, you will have to explain the basis on which you assumed that there is conflict among the three of us?”
“I want you to focus on the more important issue instead of others,” he remarked, noting that another pressing mat-ter was the freedom of the judiciary.
The CJP also inquired about those responsible for the audio leaks. “The question is who planted the audio leaks? Has the government tried to find out who is behind this?” he asked.
He also said that the Twitter accounts involved in leaking the audios should be investigated.
Awan replied that the government was looking into these questions through the commission. “How the calls were recorded and all such queries will be reviewed by the commission,” he said.
Awan further maintained that the matter was in its initial stages currently, adding that as per the federal cabinet, the recordings were “alleged audios”.
“Only this statement should be looked at,” he said, highlighting that apart from the cabinet, statements of any minis-ters should be viewed in a personal capacity.
“If the defence minister gives a statement, should that not be seen as the government’s stance too?” Justice Akhtar asked.
“If a matter turns out to be relevant to all the judges of the Supreme Court, then this theory can be applied as the doc-trine of necessity,” the AGP replied.
At one point during the hearing, Justice Akhtar recalled that no objections were raised to the bench hearing the Benazir Bhutto case.
“The phones of four out of seven judges hearing the case were tapped. Did the judges, whose calls were tapped, not take the right decision in that case?” he asked.
Awan responded, “The government’s case is not regarding bias but the conflict of interest.”
Meanwhile, Justice Bandial asked if the government’s objection was related only to the judiciary proceedings or also to the execution of the court’s administrative affairs.
The AGP argued that a person could not be a judge of their own cause, assuring the bench that the government did not have any ill-intention in the matter. “Changes in the bench will not affect the right of the petitioners who ap-proached the court,” he added.
Awan subsequently requested the court to review the appeal regarding the re-constitution of the bench and conclud-ed his arguments.
