By Special Correspondent
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial Tuesday asked if the government utilised all its resources to trace those behind recording and leaking audios involving members of higher judiciary as the Supreme Court (SC) took up the matter today.
He passed these remarks as a five-member top court bench resumed hearing pleas challenging the formation of a judicial commission led by Justice Qazi Faez Isa to probe the audio leaks. Along with the CJP, the bench also comprises Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi.
“How and where are the audio leaks coming from? Who is behind all this?” Justice Bandial asked as the top court took up the petitions. The petitions were moved by PTI Chairman Imran Khan, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Abid Zuberi, SCBA Secretary Muqtedir Akhtar Shabbir and Advocate Riaz Hanif Rahi. All of the pleas requested the court to declare the constitution of the audio commission illegal.
The coalition government in the centre had formed the commission on May 20 under Section 3 of the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act 2017. Led by senior puisne judge Justice Qazi Faez 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 had 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 judicial commission and the government had objected to the SC proceedings.
During the hearing today, Justice Munib Akhtar took exception to Interior minister Rana Sanaullah’s presser on audio leak allegedly featuring top judge’s family. Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan read the commission’s terms of reference (TORs). “One of the audio leaks relates to the CJP’s mother-in-law,” he pointed out. At that, Justice Akhtar asked if the case being heard at the moment pertains to whether the audio leaks were correct in hindsight.
Awan replied the government had formed a commission at this point and its purpose was just to determine the authenticity of the leaks. “Is the federal government not aware whether the audio leaks are authentic?” 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 remarked. “Is it lawful for someone, who is not sure about the veracity 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 reconstitution of the bench.
“Why did the interior minister hold the press conference? Can such carelessness be exercised?” he went on to ask. “After such a statement, the minister should have been removed or he himself had resigned.”
For his part, Awan asked if a minister’s statement could be considered as government stance on some particular issue. “It is not in my knowledge if someone had held a press conference.”
However, Justice Munib Akhtar asserted that the federal cabinet should have shown “collective responsibility” on such an important issue. “A minister offering tea [to someone] is different, but here a statement was given on an important issue,” he noted. At that, the AGP asked the court to see if the interior minister’s statement was given before May 19 or after.
“Wow, in what a beautiful way and what a justice done with the judiciary,” the CJP quipped. “First judges were ridiculed through the audio 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 … make an audio with their name.” He then contended that legal reasons involve in judges recusing themselves from benches. “This option is not available for anyone to come and say that this judge can’t hear this case.”
Here, the AGP said that that was the reason why the government had formed the audio leaks commission.
Who planted audio leaks: Justice Bandial
At one point, the CJP inquired, “The question is who planted the audio leaks? Has the government tried to find out who is behind this?” Awan replied that the government was looking into these questions through the commission. “How were the calls 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 of the government should be seen,” he said, highlighting that apart from the cabinet, statements of any ministers should be seen 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 here. At one point during the hearing, Justice Akhtar recalled that no objections were raised to the bench during the Benazir Bhutto case. “Phone calls 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 on the bias, but the conflict of interest.”
Meanwhile, Justice Bandial asked if the government’s objection was only to the judiciary proceedings or also to the execution of the court’s administrative affairs.
Awan subsequently requested the court to review the appeal regarding the re-constitution of the bench and concluded his arguments.
At the outset of the hearing, the AGP came to the rostrum and read out loud the government’s objections to the five-member bench hearing the case. He also proceeded to read out the SC’s order issued after the previous hearing.
“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 previous judgments issued by the court. Here, the AGP said he wanted to first present arguments on the constitution of the bench.
“Are you coming to the point that three of us judges are controversial?” Justice Bandial asked. “If you go towards 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 matter was the freedom of the judiciary.
Last week, the government had filed an appeal in the apex court seeking the reconstitution of the bench hearing the case.
