ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court of Pakistan Saturday said that its decision to not live-stream the proceedings in the case of intra-court appeals (ICAs) moved by the federal government against the court’s September 15 majority judgment striking down amendments to the anti-graft laws was due to the apprehensions of political misuse of the facility.
It said the concerns about the facility being politically misused dictated the decision not to live-stream the NAB amendments case. In 2022, amendments were made to the country’s accountability laws by the then-Pakistan Democratic Movement-led government. The amendments made several changes to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999, including limiting NAB’s jurisdiction to cases involving over Rs500 million, reducing the term of the NAB chairman and prosecutor general to three years, and transferring all pending inquiries, investigations, and trials to the relevant authorities.
PTI’s Imran Khan had subsequently filed a petition in 2022 challenging the amendments, claiming that the changes to the NAB law were made to benefit the influential accused persons and legitimise corruption.
On May 14, Chief Justice Qazi Faeq Isa had, in live broadcast proceedings, instructed the government to ensure video link arrangements for Imran Khan to join proceedings of the case and give his arguments. However, the May 16 hearing turned out anticlimactic as Imran appeared via video link but did not get a chance to speak as a petitioner in the matter. The hearing was not broadcast live with the reason left unclear.
In the May 30 hearing, the bench — headed by CJP Isa and including Justices Athar Minallah, Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, and Hasan Azhar Rizvi — decided in a 4:1 ruling not to stream the proceedings live. The bench took a short break to mull whether to live-stream the hearing and in a majority 4:1 decision, chose not to, with Justice Minallah dissenting from it. Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa advocate general (AG) had asked to live-stream the proceedings.
In its written order released Saturday explaining the decision, the court said: “In live-streaming cases, there is always a possibility that the facility may be misused or exploited for ulterior or personal purposes. There is also the possibility of grandstanding while the nation watches. This court must be vigilant against such misuse and/or exploitation.”
The order further said: “When the head of a political party wants to be heard, who is not an advocate of this court, there is a real probability that these hearings may be used for political purposes and point scoring and in respect of matters which do not concern these appeals. This was a paramount consideration when we had dismissed the application. And, our apprehension proved correct later in the day.”
The order explained that when Imran spoke in the Thursday hearing, he also “mentioned other cases, the general elections held on February 8, a commission of inquiry and his incarceration” adding all such matters had “nothing to do” with the subject matter of the appeals.
“This cannot be permitted as it would thwart the proper administration of justice.
Commenting on matters not under consideration may affect public perception. The rights of those who are not before us, including their fundamental right to fair trial and due process, may also be affected.”
Addressing the KP AG’s application, the order said the only reason given in its support was that the decision to not live-stream the NAB case proceedings amounted to “discrimination”. “However, the reason is factually incorrect because only a very few cases have been/are live-streamed. There are also instances of cases which were initially live-streamed but in the interest of justice, it was discontinued. The application also does not cite any law in its support,” the order said.
The court explained that its decision to live-stream some proceedings depended on them being a matter of public interest and 40 hearings had so far been broadcast live.
The court noted that “the public has shown little or no interest in the matter of whether the amendments made to the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, are sustainable on the constitutional plane, nonetheless this court, on its own volition, was live-streaming the hearing of these appeals.”
The order also pointed out that Imran had not attended 53 hearings of the case and neither he nor the KP government had requested for the proceedings to be broadcast live. It also pointed out that Imran was now being represented by his legal team and thus there was no need for him to be provided with the video link facility. “However, this facility is being continued,” the order added.
It continued that the KP government was also not a party in the appeals and the advocate general had not explained “why the sudden interest, or desire, for live-streaming, when his government did not join the hearings … let alone make a similar request when this court was hearing the petition.”
“In conclusion, we would like to add that while a request to live broadcast or live-stream may be submitted, and may also be objected to, it is clarified that this, as matters presently stand, is in the exclusive domain of this court,” the order concluded.