ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the government-appointed three-man special fact-finding committee but Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan said he would ask the federal government to set up a commission under the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act 2017.

The commission will ensure compliance with the Feb 6, 2019, judgement against the 20-day Faizabad sit-in by the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) in 2017.

But Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, while dictating the order after day-long proceedings in the case, observed the court trusted that the government while drafting its Terms of Reference (ToR) would also consider “co-incidental and simultaneous filing of review petitions” against the 2019 judgement by the government’s statutory bodies. The ToRs will also suggest whether this co-incidence was done on the simultaneous instructions from the same source.

At this, former Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) chairman Absar Alam came to the rostrum to request the inclusion of a condition in the ToRs that the proceedings of the commission should be streamed live so that people of Pakistan see the truth.

AGP says will ask govt to set up inquiry commission; court hopes ToRs will also consider ‘co-incidental and simultaneous’ review pleas

The CJP suggested that Absar Alam forward his suggestions to the AGP and if the government “deems it appropriate” to consider making them part of ToRs.

‘Eyewash’

The AGP’s suggestion for the appointment of a commission came when the Supreme Court regretted that the ToRs of the fact-finding committee were just an “eyewash” and devised in a manner to acquit those behind the Faizabad sit-in.

The fact-finding committee consisted of additional secretaries of the ministries of defence and interior, and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) which had to furnish a final fact-finding report to the defence ministry by Dec 1, 2023.

The court regretted that the committee was not notified in the gazette — an act which demonstrated that the matter was not given the attention it deserved.

But no satisfactory answer was forthcoming when asked how the fact-finding committee would summon people or exercise its powers, the court noted.

The AGP sought two weeks since the commission would be constituted under a cabinet decision. The court dismissed the review petitions of the defence ministry and the Intelligence Bureau.

During the hearing, the court asked Absar Alam if he would be willing to depose before the commission, if constituted by the government and whether he was prepared to be cross-examined by individuals against whom he had levelled serious allegations. Absar Alam replied in the affirmative.

He regretted his “heart bleeds to say that certain personnel of the armed forces were trying to incite violence at the time of the TLP sit-in”. He also alleged that when he ordered to shut down Channel 92 for allegedly inciting violence through their live coverage of the Faizabad sit-in, Gen Faiz Hamid called him.

When he was asked why his successor decided to file a review petition in the Supreme Court, Absar Alam said his experience tells him that either the information ministry or some intelligence agency must have asked him to do so. He also reminded that Maj Gen Faiz Hamid was ISI’s DG(C) then.

When asked why he chose to come forward when the 2019 judgement did not blame him, Absar Alam explained that an impression was created in the judgement as if he did not take the necessary steps when he was heading the regulatory authority.

Allegations against Pemra

During the hearing, the court asked senior counsel Hafiz S.A. Rehman whether he was aware of the allegations levelled by Absar Alam, the counsel replied he had received a copy of his concise statement on Wednesday. He added that the events narrated by the former Pemra chairman were not in his knowledge. However, the counsel preferred not to argue the matter when questioned about the implementation of the court directions.

In its order, the court noted that when the incu­mbent Pemra chairman was asked why he filed the review petition, Moham­mad Saleem gave conflicting answers by stating it was a decision taken by the authority. When asked to refer to the decision, he said it was the verbal order contrary to Section 8(5) of the Pemra Ordi­nance which stipulated that all decisions should be in writing. But the chairman had no answer.

The order noted it was clear that the chairman himself had decided to file the review petition; besides, he also had no answer when asked who had instructed him to file the petition. When asked if he was instructed by someone to file the plea, he refused to answer, saying “bas” in Urdu.

It is extremely disconcerting that a senior person like him intentionally misled the court and withheld the information, the court said. “He was not concerned about compliance with the law but only to secure his position,” it reg­re­tted, though the chairman offered his apologies.

“The government will reflect upon your conduct at the court and may consider replacing you,” the CJP observed, also regretting that the conduct of the chairman in filing the review petition seems as if he was a puppet in someone’s hand.

‘Not happy with ECP’

The Supreme Court was also not happy with the Election Commission of Pakistan’s reply regarding its report by the scrutiny committee that the TLP was not involved in any anti-state activities or terrorism or its accounts.

The court noted that the scrutiny committee had called the TLP due to discrepancies and abnormalities in the affairs of the TLP but the party did not provide any detailed bank accounts or disclosed who provided them the funds.

Surprisingly, the court observed, though the scrutiny committee discovered irregularities, it appeared the ECP, without application of its mind, rea­ched the conclusion that had been reached earlier by the committee and categorised the amounts rec­e­ived by the party as peanuts. However, the court dismissed the review petition but provided an opportunity for the commission to attend to matters in line with the Elections Act 2017 and the Constitution.

Published in Dawn, November 2nd, 2023