ISLAMABAD: The Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) said will advise the government to set up an Inquiry Commission to probe reasons for not implementing the Faizabad “dharna” judgment, as the Supreme Court disapproved the federal government’s fact-finding committee.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Athar Minallah, on Wednesday, heard the review petitions of federal government, Ministry of Defence (ISI), Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Intelligence Bureau (IB), Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), Awami Muslim League (AML) chief Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed, President Pakistan Muslim League-Zia Ejazul Haq, and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P).
The petitions of the Federation, Ministry of Defence, IB, PTI, MQM-P, and Ejazul Haq were dismissed as withdrawn.
Faizabad ‘dharna’ judgment: Fact-finding committee formed for compliance: Govt informs SC
The court; however, issued notice to Sheikh Rasheed, as his Advocate on Record made conflicting statement that he could not contact AML chief, but at the same time requested the court to allow him to withdraw the review petition. The court issued notice to Sheikh Rasheed so that his petition is not dismissed for non-prosecution. The ECP was allowed time to file the report about the compliance of directions given in the judgment.
The chief justice said that the court wanted to know the masterminds behind the Faizabad sit-in. He remarked that the terms of reference (TORs) of the fact-finding committee are akin to throwing dust in the eyes. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the vague and inconclusive nature of the committee’s objectives.
Justice Minallah questioned the country’s alignment with constitutional principles and the government’s sluggishness in executing court’s decisions.
The CJP emphasised how important it is for the bench to uncover the masterminds behind the protest to know their latent motives.
The application filed by AGP Mansoor Usman Awan stated that a committee comprising additional secretaries of Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Interior, DG ISI, DG MI has been constituted to conduct inquiry in pursuant of the observation made in the Faizabad sit-in judgment.
The court said: “the contents of the application regrettably demonstrate that the matter was not given seriousness that it deserves.” When the bench questioned how the committee would compel people to appear before it and inquire and search. No satisfactory answer was given.
The attorney general stated that he would recommend the government to set up the commission under the Inquiry Commission Act, 1956, to probe the reasons for non-implementation of the judgment. The chief justice told him that the TORs of the commission should be in terms of the judgment.
The bench hoped that there will also be ToRs about co-incidental, simultaneously filing of the review petitions in the court by the government and the statutory bodies and whether it was done simultaneously on the instruction of the same source.
During the proceeding, the bench summoned Chairman PEMRA Muhammad Saleem Baig when the regulatory body’s counsel and the officials failed to reply to the Court queries regarding the affidavit of Absar Alam, ex-chief PEMRA. Alam has levelled serious allegations against former DG ISI Gen Faiz Hameed regarding intervention in the body’s affairs.
The chief justice inquired if the government forms a commission, then will he record his statement before it? Absar Alam swore that he would take all the names before the commission.
The chief justice repeatedly inquired from Saleem Baig that who had instructed him to file the review petition. He gave conflicting replies; first, he stated it was decided by the PEMRA’s authorities. However, when the court asked him to provide written proof of it, he submitted that it was verbal instruction. The court when drew his attention towards Section 8(5) of PEMRA Ordinance, 2002, which says; “All orders, determinations and decisions of the Authority shall be taken in writing and shall identify the determination of the Chairman and each member separately,” he had no answer.
The Court then inquired from him whether he himself decided to file the petition and exercised his independent mind. He remained quiet. Since the chairman PEMRA was inconclusive the court then asked him was he instructed by someone to file the application. The court noted it is disconcerting that chairman PEMRA first misled the court and then held the information, and he was not complying with the law but trying to secure himself. The chief justice said the government must reflect on the conduct of the PEMRA chairman.
Absar Alam said that he was removed as chairman PEMRA by the Lahore High Court on December 18. “You said to bring the truth and so I did,” Alam said. “It was known among journalists that whoever filed a petition against me in the LHC is a person of the agencies,” he said.
Alam further recalled that he was given verbal orders to sack Najam Sethi after the latter revealed on a talk show that institutional corruption was taking place. “I was removed for this reason,” he added. He also said that he had written letters to the then Prime Minister (Nawaz Sharif), former chief justice and ex-chief of army staff after he had received a call.
Justice Minallah remarked that the incumbent PEMRA chief says 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.
The case was adjourned until November 15.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed.