Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Athar Minallah Wednesday asked why the court should order an inquiry into an alleged audiotape of former chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) Saqib Nisar when the top PML-N leadership had not approached the court.
He made these remarks while hearing arguments on maintainability of a petition seeking constitution of an independent commission to ascertain the authenticity of the alleged audio of Nisar and probe certain events before and after former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s conviction. The petition has been jointly filed by Salahuddin Ahmed, President of the Sindh High Court Bar Association, and Syed Haider Imam Rizvi, a member of the Judicial Commission (Sindh).
Justice Minallah asked the AGP as to whom the court should issue orders for an inquiry. Khan responded that the petition had been filed under Article 199-C of the Constitution that was related to a high court’s jurisdiction in cases regarding enforcement of fundamental rights. “It seems like they (petitioners) have filed a proxy petition. A perception should not be given that the petitioners are arguing someone else’s case,” he said, adding that sometimes people did not know when they were being used. “This is the season of harassing and pressuring judges. Sometimes an audio, sometimes some concocted affidavit is released,” the attorney general said, referring to an affidavit by former Gilgit-Baltistan chief justice Rana Shamim in which he accused ex-CJP Nisar of colluding to deny bails to Nawaz and Maryam before general elections 2018.
There was a prime minister (Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto) who was hanged on the court’s orders, AGP Khan said. “Former prime minister Benazir Bhutto’s government was not restored but another one was. Brief cases full [of cash] were also given in the past.” If the petitioners wanted to conduct inquiries into the past events, they should amend their petition, Khan argued. “Why should we go only till 2017? Let’s go to [the tenure of] Zulfikar Ali Bhutto,” he said.
The IHC chief justice observed that any audio or video could be constructed in today’s age of advanced technology. “Anybody can make an audio and ask for investigation. What effect would it have on ongoing appeals if we order an inquiry into this audiotape?” he questioned. The attorney general contended without naming Maryam that all matters were related to one appeal, iterating that a “proxy war” was being fought for one case. He said he was willing to file an amended petition himself, seeking accountability of past incidents.
Ahmed countered that if the attorney general wanted, he could get accountability of past incidents done through the government, asking why there was a need to connect this petition to those incidents. Referring to the case related to the ex-GB judge’s affidavit, the lawyer said the petition related to the audiotape could be heard too. Justice Minallah noted, however, that the matter of the affidavit was different because the person concerned – Rana Shamim – had himself approached the court.
“You’re unsure yourself about the [authenticity of] the audiotape you’re mentioning. A commission can be formed when there are grounds.
“The people who have cases [which could be affected by it] have not brought the audiotape to the court. Why should we [take action]? Is there anyone to take ownership of the audiotape?” he questioned. The attorney general asked Ahmed to amend his petition to include such incidents in the past as well, vowing to take the matter to parliament himself.
The court adjourned the hearing till December 24.