Apex court dismisses review pleas filed by IB, PTI, defence ministry, MQM-Pakistan & Ijazul Haq for withdrawal in Faizabad sit-in case
Grants the Election Commission one month’s time to prepare & submit a report on the TLP & its funding
CJP Qazi Faiz Isa says apex court wanted to know who was behind the Faizabad sit-in
Says anyone here gets up and blocks the roads, then goes abroad after harming the country
ISLAMABAD ( Web News )
The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday rejected the government’s fact-finding committee, ordering the Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan, to form a new inquiry commission soon pertaining to the implementation of the apex court verdict in the Faizabad sit-in case. Meanwhile Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Qazi Faez Isa asked if the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) was sincere with the country.
The fact-finding committee was constituted by the government, on Friday, to investigate the “role and directions” of all “concerned” officials in the management and handling of the sit-in in 2017 staged by the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan against the then-Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government.
The orders for a new inquiry commission came during the hearing of a set of petitions against the February 6, 2019, judgment in the Faizabad dharna case.
On February 6, 2019, the SC bench comprising the now-Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Mushir Alam, ruled that the intelligence agencies must not exceed their respective mandates.
Multiple pleas challenging the SC verdict on the Faizabad sit-in were filed by the federal government, Ministry of Defence, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), the Intelligence Bureau (IB), the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Pakistan Tehreek-Insaf (PTI), MQM-Pakistan, Awami Muslim League Chief Sheikh Rashid Ahemd and PML-Z Chief Ziaul Haq.
However, most of the petitioners retracted their applications recently, prompting the CJP Isa to ask “why is everyone so afraid to speak the truth”.
“Is it a joke to file a revision petition and withdraw it?” CJP Isa remarked during the hearing.
The court dismissed review pleas filed by the IB, PTI, the defence ministry, MQM and Ijazul Haq for withdrawal. It also issued notices to Sheikh Rashid over failure to appear in court and adjourned the hearing till November 15.
A three-member SC bench comprising the CJP Isa, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Athar Minallah heard the petitions challenging the ruling on Wednesday.
During the hearing, the top judge said the apex court wanted to know who was behind the Faizabad sit-in.
“We want to know who was the mastermind of the Faizabad sit-in,” he remarked, expressing annoyance over the decision not being implemented since its issuance in 2019.
The chief justice, during the hearing, questioned what the incumbent government was doing on the implementation of the SC’s decision in the sit-in case.
“No one cares about this country,” CJP Isa remarked, while Justice Athar Minallah said that the county is only for the elites and has been occupied by them for the last 70 years.
Taking a jibe at the government’s non-seriousness towards the case, CJP Isa said the court will close the case if the government asks it to do so.
“We will again wait for next debacle like Faizabad to take place. Are we threatened by external enemies or internal threats?” he questioned, rejecting the government’s fact-finding committee.
The chief justice said anyone here gets up and blocks the roads, then goes abroad after harming the country.
The chief justice’s remark hinted at Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) chief Tahirul Qadri’s participation in the 2014 sit-in by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) against the then-government of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) in the centre.
“Was the purpose of importing a person to overthrow the government of that time?” CJP Isa asked, further questioning if the said person’s services will be sought again in the future.
“Did this person from Canada pay for his own ticket?” he questioned, further asking if it is possible to determine this by the investigation committee.
“[Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority] PEMRA, the Election Commission of Pakistan was not independent at that time,” he remarked.
The court then immediately summoned PEMRA Chairman Muhammad Salim Baig to the rostrum.
During the hearing, PEMRA’s counsel Hafiz S. A. Rehman said he has only received ex-Pemra chairman Absar Alam’s affidavit today. Upon this the chief justice miffed over the PEMRA counsel and summoned the Chairman PEMRA Muhammad Saleem Baig immediately in the court.
During the hearing, Absar Alam alleged the spy agencies’ interference in media affairs, claiming that the “people of intelligence agencies” used to call cable operators. “A PEMRA member had received a call which was recorded,” he said.
When asked about the caller’s name, Alam said he could not confirm 100 percent because there was no caller id or number on the call that was received.
Alam said that he received “verbal orders” for sacking journalist Najam Sethi, who used to host a programme on Geo News, and he was removed from the PEMRA chief’s post when he refused to comply to these orders.
“I was removed as PEMRA chairman by the Lahore High Court on December 18. You said to bring the truth and so I did,” Alam said, adding that “it was known among journalists that whoever filed a petition against me in the LHC is a person of the agencies.”
He also stated that different petitions were also filed against him in Lahore High Court, Sindh High and Islamabad High Court.
At one point, Justice Minallah mentioned that the incumbent PEMRA chief said there was no pressure on him, to which Alam said Baig was a “fortunate person”.
“If tomorrow the government forms a commission, will you record your statement?” Justice Isa asked. Alam swore that he would take all the names before the commission.
Meanwhile, the chief justice said the committee should also call those who were accused and give them a chance for cross-examination.
Justice Minallah emphasised that the supremacy of the Constitution must be ensured at any cost. CJP Isa remarked that when one person gets affected, it makes others mindful of the consequences of doing something wrong.
The chief justice further stressed that the inquiry should also reveal why everyone appealed the 2019 verdict.
“You have an opportunity to get the inquiry done from a person who respects the Constitution,” Justice Minallah said while Justice Isa said it was up to the government to choose whoever they wanted to conduct the probe.
“As per Absar Alam’s statement, all institutions, including the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), are not independent,” the CJP said.
Muhammad Saleem Baig insisted that he knew nothing about what happened to the former PEMRA chairman, recalling that he was appointed six months after Alam left. “Before becoming the PEMRA chief, I was a grade 20 principal officer,” he added.
“Are you the head of a dummy institution?” the CJP asked Baig, noting that all the institutions in the country had become a “joke”.
“Tell us one paragraph that PEMRA implemented from the 110-page judgment,” Justice Isa said. Rioting and arson, he continued, were not freedom of expression. “Are two TV channels still prohibited in the Cantt area?” the chief justice asked.
Meanwhile, Justice Minallah sought the number of inquiries conducted against cable operators. “You say there is no pressure on you, but whenever people here leave their seats, they say there was a lot of pressure on them,” he remarked. This is a “common culture”, the judge added.
At one point, the CJP asked Baig about his salary to which the latter said he was paid Rs400,000. “Were you the PEMRA chairman when Faizabad dharna was underway?” Justice Isa further inquired, noting that Baig’s name was included in the case.
He then reprimanded the PEMRA chief for misrepresenting that he was appointed later and warned that Baig could be charged with contempt of court for failing to implement the verdict.
Justice Isa also asked that if the term of a PEMRA chairman lasted four years, how did Baig stay in the post for so long? In his reply, the latter said he was appointed for the second time.
“On whose order did you file the review petition?” the CJP asked Baig, assuring him that the court only wanted to strengthen the authority and find out who was interfering in its affairs.
In response, Baig said PEMRA had decided to file the review petition.
“If you don’t respond, we will issue an order. Saleem Baig saheb, may God give you a long life but we have to go there. Be brave and tell us who told you to file a review petition,” Justice Isa said.
He also inquired about PEMRA’s approval for the review petition. “It was verbal, not written,” Baig replied. However, the chief justice asked how could a decision be taken verbally and then called PEMRA’s law director to the rostrum.
“He [Baig] is not speaking the truth, who told you to file a review?” Justice Isa questioned. But the law director responded that he was unaware of the matter.
“Read the law. Can a decision be taken by PEMRA verbally?” he said and then turned to Awan. “AGP saheb, PEMRA chairman is saying he doesn’t know about the review petition. Were there some hidden forces that filed the review plea?” the CJP asked.
Justice Isa went on to say that without written notification, there was no existence of PEMRA’s review petition. “You are just wasting our time,” he told Baig, adding that none of the previous three governments was pleased during the latter’s tenure as Pemra chief.
The chief justice also highlighted that Baig’s signatures were present on PEMRA’s review petition and directed him to take responsibility for his actions.
“Can someone go to Canada and return to Pakistan after rioting?” Justice Isa asked. “Is this right only for those who come from Canada? Who brought them? Now that you have returned to Canada, tell us … has the work you came for been completed?
“Islam is the religion of peace, they are also defaming Islam,” the CJP pointed out, adding that there was no place for rioting in Islam.
Here, Justice Minallah said the Faizabad verdict was a “landmark judgment”. On the other hand, the CJP called it a “simple order”, recalling that the government at that time, good or bad, was elected by the public.
The SC bench then rejected the fact-finding committee constituted by the government and directed it to form another committee to probe those responsible for the Faizabad dharna.
For his part, the AGP assured the bench that he would provide details regarding the new committee within two days.
When the ECP’s lawyer came to the rostrum, CJP Isa said, “You are an independent institution. Did the ECP file a futile review petition which is now being withdrawn?”
Who was heading the commission during the Faizabad dharna, Justice Minallah inquired. The ECP’s counsel Malik Qamar Afzal Advocate replied Justice (retd) Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan was the chief election commissioner at that time.
CJP Isa noted that the electoral body had submitted an implementation report. While going through it, Justice Isa asked why the ECP had used the word “hafiz” with TLP members. He also noted that the report detailed the actions taken by the commission before the Faizabad verdict was issued and sought details of the measures taken after it.
At one point, the chief justice said that there was not a single round figure in the funding received by the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan. “It appears that these funds came from abroad, but there is no round figure of [the funds] after currency exchange,” he noted.
The ECP lawyer subsequently asked for time to overview the matter.
Justice Isa asked what should be done if the commission did not implement the SC verdict. However, the electoral body’s counsel said he couldn’t say that the ECP would not implement the order.
Here, the AGP said the ECP understands that it is a constitutional institution.
“This is a strange coincidence that constitutional institutions filed review petitions on the same day,” the CJP remarked, to which Awan said that the fact these petitions were fixed for hearing after four years was also a “coincidence”.
For his part, the ECP counsel said that except for one, no other donors of the TLP had revealed their identity.
“Has the Election Act been implemented? TLP has not revealed the source of 33 per cent of its income,” the CJP noted, adding that the commission tried to mislead the court. “Is the ECP sincere with the country?”
The electoral body’s counsel replied in the affirmative.
Justice Isa lamented that the country’s institutions were “destroyed in a systematic way”. Addressing the ECP lawyer, he said it seemed as if the former was representing the TLP.
“Now elections are coming and an entire environment has been formed that everyone is on the same page,” the chief justice said.
Justice Minallah also said that the ECP would only be able to conduct transparent polls when it ensures transparency within the institution.
Subsequently, the court granted the election commission one month’s time to prepare and submit a report on the TLP and its funding. The court has adjourned further hearing of the case till 15th November.