Faizabad sit-in: CJP Isa asks if electoral watchdog is sincere with country

During the hearing today, Justice Isa said he had some questions regarding Alam’s note submitted to the SC yesterday. “You said there are some rebellious elements in the media,” he said.

Alam responded that “people of intelligence agencies” used to reach out to cable operators. “A Pemra member had received a call which was recorded,” he said.

When asked about the name of the caller, Alam said he could not confirm it because people often called with fake identities. He went on to say that there were petitions against him in three high courts.

“I was removed as Pemra chairman by the Lahore High Court on Dec 18. You said to bring the truth and so I did,” Alam said. “It was known among journalists that whoever filed a petition against me in the LHC is a person of the agencies,” he said.

Alam further recalled that he was given verbal orders to sack Najam Sethi after the latter revealed on a talk show that institutional corruption was taking place. “I was removed for this reason,” he added.

Alam also said that he had written a letter to the ex-army chief after he had received a call.

“If I were the prime minister at that time, I would have held an inquiry or told Pemra to take action,” the CJP said here.

At one point, Justice Minallah mentioned that the incumbent Pemra chief said there was no pressure on him, to which Alam said Baig was a “fortunate person”.

“If tomorrow the government forms a commission, will you record your statement?” Justice Isa asked. Alam swore that he would take all the names before the commission.

Meanwhile, the chief justice said the committee should also call those who were accused and give them a chance for cross-examination.

At the outset of the hearing, AGP Awan read out the order of the previous hearing.

Referring to Alan’s note, CJP Isa noted that the former Pemra chairman had levelled “serious allegations” on the defence ministry and inquired if the government still wanted to withdraw its review petition.

“If Absar Alam’s accusations are true, then this matter is linked to you,” he told the AGP.

Subsequently, the court summoned incumbent Pemra chief Saleem Baig over Alam’s note. When he appeared before the bench, the CJP said Absar Alam had submitted some documents to the SC.

“I have read the report,” Baig replied, adding that Alam had written all that he had witnessed.

“Has this never happened to you?” Justice Minallah asked. “Nothing of this sort happened to me,” the Pemra chief replied.

However, the CJP said Alam’s note had been published in the newspapers. “Take the court proceedings seriously,” he directed.

Baig insisted that he knew nothing about what happened to the former Pemra chairman, recalling that he was appointed six months after Alam left. “Before becoming the Pemra chief, I was a grade 20 principal officer,” he added.

“Are you the head of a dummy institution?” the CJP asked Baig, noting that all the institutions in the country had become a “joke”.

“Tell us one paragraph that Pemra implemented from the 110-page judgment,” Justice Isa said. Rioting and arson, he continued, were not freedom of expression. “Are two TV channels still prohibited in the Cantt area?” the chief justice asked.

Meanwhile, Justice Minallah sought the number of inquiries conducted against cable operators. “You say there is no pressure on you, but whenever people here leave their seats, they say there was a lot of pressure on them,” he remarked.

This is a “common culture”, the judge added.

At one point, the CJP asked Baig about his salary to which the latter said he was paid Rs400,000. “Were you the Pemra chairman when Faizabad dharna was underway?” Justice Isa further inquired, noting that Baig’s name was included in the case.

He then reprimanded the Pemra chief for misrepresenting that he was appointed later and warned that Baig could be charged with contempt of court for failing to implement the verdict.

Justice Isa also asked that if the term of a Pemra chairman lasted four years, how did Baig stay in the post for so long? In his reply, the latter said he was appointed for the second time.

“On whose order did you file the review petition?” the CJP asked Baig, assuring him that the court only wanted to strengthen the authority and find out who was interfering in its affairs.

In response, Baig said Pemra had decided to file the review petition.

“If you don’t respond, we will issue an order. Saleem Baig saheb, may God give you a long life but we have to go there. Be brave and tell us who told you to file a review petition,” Justice Isa said.

He also inquired about Pemra’s approval for the review petition. “It was verbal, not written,” Baig replied. However, the chief justice asked how could a decision be taken verbally and then called Pemra’s law director to the rostrum.

“He [Baig] is not speaking the truth, who told you to file a review?” Justice Isa questioned. But the law director responded that he was unaware of the matter.

“Read the law. Can a decision be taken by Pemra verbally?” he said and then turned to Awan. “AGP saheb, Pemra chairman is saying he doesn’t know about the review petition. Were there some hidden forces that filed the review plea?” the CJP asked.

Justice Isa went on to say that without written notification, there was no existence of Pemra’s review petition. “You are just wasting our time,” he told Baig, adding that none of the previous three governments was pleased during the latter’s tenure as Pemra chief.

The chief justice also highlighted that Baig’s signatures were present on Pemra’s review petition and directed him to take responsibility for his actions.

When the ECP’s lawyer came to the rostrum, CJP Isa said, “You are an independent institution. Did the ECP file a futile review petition which is now being withdrawn?”

Who was heading the commission during the Faizabad dharna, Justice Minallah inquired. The ECP’s counsel replied Sardar Raza was the chief election commissioner at that time.

CJP Isa noted that the electoral body had submitted an implementation report. While going through it, Justice Isa asked why the ECP had used the word “hafiz” with TLP members. He also noted that the report detailed the actions taken by the commission before the Faizabad verdict was issued and sought details of the measures taken after it.

At one point, the chief justice said that there was not a single round figure in the funding received by the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan. “It appears that these funds came from abroad, but there is no round figure of [the funds] after currency exchange,” he noted.

The ECP lawyer subsequently asked for time to overview the matter.

Justice Isa asked what should be done if the commission did not implement the SC verdict. However, the electoral body’s counsel said he couldn’t say that the ECP would not implement the order.

Here, the AGP said the ECP understands that it is a constitutional institution.

“This is a strange coincidence that constitutional institutions filed review petitions on the same day,” the CJP remarked, to which Awan said that the fact these petitions were fixed for hearing after four years was also a “coincidence”.

For his part, the ECP counsel said that except for one, no other donors of the TLP had revealed their identity.

“Has the Election Act been implemented? TLP has not revealed the source of 33 per cent of its income,” the CJP noted, adding that the commission tried to mislead the court. “Is the ECP sincere with the country?”

The electoral body’s counsel replied in the affirmative.

Justice Isa lamented that the country’s institutions were “destroyed in a systematic way”. Addressing the ECP lawyer, he said it seemed as if the former was representing the TLP.

“Now elections are coming and an entire environment has been formed that everyone is on the same page,” the chief justice said.

Justice Minallah also said that the ECP would only be able to conduct transparent polls when it ensures transparency within the institution.

Subsequently, the court granted the election commission one month’s time to prepare and submit a report on the TLP and its funding.

The IB’s review petition had urged the court to set aside the adverse observations made against the department, adding that it was a premier civilian intelligence agency which was responsible for state security.

It had contended that the impugned order created a “bad impression” on the public that the IB was involved in unlawful activities and politics, after transgressing constitutional boundaries.

It had said the observations made in the verdict were based on “vague facts” and that during the sit-in, the department was in close contact with the federal and Punjab governments and forewarned them about the plans and intentions of the TLP, with a view to foiling their attempt to storm/lockdown Islamabad.

Meanwhile, In response, the defence ministry had requested the court to set aside the explicit or implicit observations about the armed forces and/or the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

The ministry’s petition had said that a host of factors may affect morale. However, it said, what was fatal was the belief amongst the rank and file that their officers while acting like “self-proclaimed saviours” were violating the fundamental rights of citizens and instead of serving “Pakistan and thus all its citizens”, supporting a “particular political party, faction or politician”.

“…When the source of such remarks is the highest court in the land, it can promote fissiparous tendencies and has the capacity to destroy the ability of the armed forces to act as a cohesive fighting force,” the review petition had argued.

It had further said there was no evidence before the court to suggest that the armed forces or ISI were, in any manner, involved with either the sit-in or a particular outcome of the general elections of 2018 or the abridgement of free speech or intimidation or censorship of the press.

In its petition, the ECP had contended that it had comprehensively applied and enforced the Constitution, law and code of conduct by issuing a letter to the TLP on Aug 16, 2017, asking the party to provide details of its bank account and even had issued notices to it with a warning to cancel its registration.

Meanwhile, the PTI had questioned the mention in the verdict of the 2014 joint sit-in organised by it and the Pakistan Awami Tehreek in Islamabad, and had said the impression one gets from it was that the party conducted an illegal protest for publicity and deliberately made wrong allegations.

The petition contended that the party had nothing to do with the TLP Faizabad sit-in and therefore the remarks should be expunged.

Rashid had approached the court to remove his name from the judgement. In his petition, the AML chief pleaded that if the words concerning him in para-4 of the judgement were not expunged, he would suffer adversely in his life.

Daily life in Islamabad was disrupted for 20 days (from Oct 2 to Nov 27, 2017) when protesters belonging to religiopolitical parties occupied the Faizabad Interchange which connects Rawalpindi and Islamabad through the Islamabad Expressway and Murree Road, both of which are the busiest roads in the twin cities.