SC rejects PDM govt’s objections to bench hearing pleas against audio leaks commission

ISLAMABAD : The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday rejected the previous Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) government’s objections to the bench hearing a set of pleas challenging the constitution of a three-judge commission set up to probe the veracity of audio leaks that had implicated politicians as well as judges of the top court and their family members.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan announced the short order, saying that the objections were “an attack on the independence of the judiciary”.

The previous coalition government had formedthe commission on May 20 under Section 3 of the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act 2017. Led by senior puisne judge Justice Isa, the commission also comprised Balochistan High Court Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Aamer Farooq.

On May 26, the top court had restrained the panel from going ahead with its task. The verdict was issued by the five-member bench hearing the case.

The order was passed on a set of petitions moved by Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Abid Shahid Zuberi, SCBA Secretary Muqtedir Akhtar Shabbir, PTI Chairman Imran Khan and Advocate Riaz Hanif Rahi seeking to declare the constitution of the audio commission illegal.

Subsequently, the government-app­ointed commission decided to put its proceedings on hold until the SC decided the petitions.

However, the PDM government sought thereconstitution of the five-member bench — led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed — hearing the pleas against the formation of the commission.

In its application, the PDM government had asked CJP Bandial, Justice Ahsan, and Justice Akhtar to distance themselves from the bench since “rules of natural justice” demanded that the “adjudicator should be impartial”.

Having Justice Bandial on the bench hearing the matter that seeks to challenge the inquiry commission on audio leaks pertaining to a very close family member of CJP “contributes to and raises grave concerns vis-a-vis appearance of impartiality”, the application had alleged.

“These objections pertain only to the appearance of impartiality and conflict of interest and therefore are distinct and separate to bias which has neither been raised nor is the contention of the applicant,” the petition had said, adding the conflict of interest also does not pertain to pecuniary or proprietary interests.

Moreover, in addition to the objection raised about the presence of the CJP on the bench, the application had pointed out that the audio leaks also concerned two other members, Justice Akhtar and Justice Ahsan.

One audio leak pertains to a conversationbetween petitioner Abid Zuberi and the then chief minister, discussing a case of CCPO Ghulam Mehmood Dogar. The bench hearing the case was headed by Justice Ahsan.

Similarly, another audio leak was about aconversation between a senior lawyer’s wife and the mother-in-law of the CJP, wherein reference was made to Justice Akhtar.

“Consequently, propriety and good sense dictate and demand that Justice Ahsan and Justice Akhtar may also graciously recuse themselves from hearing the captioned petition,” the application had said.

The top court had reserved its verdict on the government’s plea on June 6. During the hearing, CJP Bandial had asked if the government, with all its reso­urces, had ever taken any step to find out who was beh­ind the audio leaks, particularly when such clips were being released through the Twitter handle of a hacker.

“From where and how are these audio leaks coming forward and who is behind all this,” the CJP had wondered.

At this, Attorney General for Pakis­tan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan had argued that to put all such issues at rest, the federal government had intentionally wanted that the three-judge commission und­e­r­take this exercise by probing all these aspects.

He had added the government’s plea for reconstitution of the five-member SC bench was not related to “bias” on part of any judge, but due to “conflict of interest”.

courtesy : dawn news