ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court of Pakistan yesterday rejected the government’s fact-finding committee, ordering the Attorney-General for Pakistan, Mansoor Usman Awan, to form a new inquiry commission pertaining to the implementation of the apex court verdict in the Faizabad sit-in case.
The court also said that they wanted to know who orchestrated the Faizabad sit-in in 2017, therefore, a powerful commission be formed to probe why its judgment on the matter was not implemented.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Athar Minallah conducted hearing of the review petitions of the federal government, Ministry of Defence (ISI), the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI), the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Intelligence Bureau (IB), Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), Awami Muslim League (AML) chief Sheikh Rashid Ahmed and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P). The petitions of the Federation, Ministry of Defence, IB, PTI, MQM-P and Ejaz ul Haq were dismissed as those were not pressed. The court, however, issued notice to Sh Rashid as his Advocate on Record made a conflicting statement that he could not contact AML chief Sh Rashid, but at the same time requested the court to allow him to withdraw the review petition. ECP and PEMRA were allowed time to file the report about the compliance of directions give to them in the judgment.
During the hearing, CJP Isa raised concerns about the absence of a formal report or notifications that validated the committee’s establishment and criticized the committee’s purported reporting to the Defence Ministry as an exercise devoid of substance.
“The terms of reference (TORs) of the fact-finding committee are akin to throwing dust in the eyes,” he remarked, highlighting his dissatisfaction with the vague and inconclusive nature of the committee’s objectives. Furthermore, Justice Minallah questioned the country’s alignment with constitutional principles and the government’s sluggishness in executing court decisions.
The CJP emphasized that how important it is for the bench to uncover the masterminds behind the protest to know their latent motives. “The motives behind the sit-in were different despite the cancellation of the law change,” CJP Isa pointed out and directed that there should be a proper investigation into the persistence of the protest despite legal alterations.
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 Terms of Reference (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 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 Faiz Hameed regarding intervention in the body’s affairs.
The Chief Justice inquired from Alam that 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 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 the written proof of it then he submitted that it was the 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. The court then asked him was he instructed by some to file the application. The court noted it disconcerting that the chairman PEMRA first misled the court and then held the information, and he was not in compliance to the law but trying to secure himself. The Chief Justice said that the government must reflect on the conduct of PEMRA chairman.