Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday reiterated that any hurdles and impediments during probe carried out by joint investigation team (JIT) into Panama scandal were intolerable.

Headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, the three-judge implementation bench further observed that creating obstacles in the way of JIT was a clear violation of top court’s April 20 verdict.

The SC observed that JIT’s allegations were very severe in nature, and directed Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf to thoroughly go through the reservations of the JIT and submit reply.

The bench also reserved its decision over a petition filed by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s son Hussain Nawaz on video regarding during JIT sessions and matter of his photo leak.

During the course of the hearing, Khawaja Haris, representing Hussain Nawaz, argued against the use of video cameras during JIT proceedings and contended that recording was in violation of laws and had no legal value.

He feared leakage of video in future which, according to him, will have greater consequences. “Who will be responsible if the prime minister’s video is released on social media tomorrow?” Haris asked.

Justice Khan observed that the video recording would not change the legal value of the statement, adding it was only used to determine the correct context of the statement while the rights of witnesses remained unaffected.

To this, Haris said that correct statements had been recorded even before the introduction of the video technology. However, Justice Khan observed that it was not 1889 and the use of technology was ‘no big deal’.

Haris argued that the Code of Criminal Procedure’s Article 161 allowed only verbal investigation which could be written whenever required.

Justice Khan, however, observed that a statement recorded under Article 161 was not admissible as evidence and was only used when there were two contradicting statements.

While referring to the JIT’s action against its team member, the counsel questioned whether JIT could be the judge of its own actions. He added that the JIT was bound by a criminal code, NAB Ordinance, 1999, and FIA Act, 1975.

The AGP also endorsed counsel’s arguments and said that the court could not create space for new rules in existing laws on its own.