ISLAMABAD: Justice Babar Sattar dismissed applications of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), and the Pakistan Telecommunication Autho-rity (PTA) seeking his recusal from hearing the audio leaks case.
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge, on Monday, was hearing the petitions of former chief justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar’s son Mian Najam us Saqib and former prime minister Imran Khan’s wife Bushra Bibi regarding their audio conversation leaks.
Besides dismissing the pleas, the IHC bench also imposed a Rs500,000 fine on each of them. He also hinted at initiating contempt proceedings against the PEMRA, the FIA, and the PTA, and summoned the director general Intelligence Bureau (IB) on the next date.
The PEMRA, the PTA, the FIA, and the IB, on April 27, had filed separate petitions in the audio leaks case requesting that the matter be placed before the same bench of the court that has already decided a similar issue and pleaded the recusal of Justice Sattar.
Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan appeared on behalf of the Federation. Aitzaz Ahsan was also present for the court’s legal assistance.
During the hearing, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Munawar Iqbal Duggal informed the court that the FIA had sought the reformation of the bench as six IHC judges, including Justice Sattar, had written a letter alleging intelligence agencies’ meddling in judicial affairs.
Justice Sattar asked what connection does an ISI matter have with the FIA and how is this letter related to the FIA? The judge observed that the judges had expressed their support for the claims made by IHC Justice (retired) Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui and for a probe into them.
Mentioning one of the petitions, Justice Sattar stated that the judges had “complained” about intelligence agencies. He questioned how is this a complaint? Justice (retired) Shaukat Siddiqui had made allegations and they are supporting them.
The IHC bench asked that if the executive blackmails judges, will it be a conflict of interest for the judges? How would you define conflict of interest? Later, the bench dismissed the FIA’s petition against him hearing the case with a fine of Rs500,000.
At one point, Justice Sattar summoned an IB official to the rostrum and asked at whose approval the bureau’s plea was filed. AAG Duggal responded that the IB’s joint director had given the approval. When asked the official’s name, the AAG replied that his name was Tariq Mehmood.
Then, Justice Sattar summoned the bureau’s joint director to the next hearing after the IB’s official failed to provide a satisfactory response.
At this, lawyer Ahsan praised the court’s decision, saying that it had made him stand tall. Addressing AAG Duggal, the judge remarked that the aim of filing miscellaneous applications seeking to transfer the case to another bench was to humiliate court’s proceedings.
Justice Sattar said that you and I live in the same world and are absolutely understanding this. He added that if a judge initiates contempt of court proceedings for his own benefit? He also asked should the court stop hearing all cases pertaining to the IB and FIA? Barrister Ahsan said that he is glad that judges are now saying “enough is enough”. Justice Sattar then directed Ahsan to assist the court on the next hearing, saying that he could also submit a written briefing on the case if he wished.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.