The Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court (IHC), Athar Minallah on Wednesday remarked that why the court should investigate a case when the concerned appellants didn’t bring any audio before the bench, reports The News.
The court was hearing the inquiry commission to probe into the alleged video of former Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Saqib Nisar.
The Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Javed said the petition has been filed under Article 199-C of the Constitution.
“Why are people choosing only one prime minister and coming to court as their proxy? Thousands of people were sacked. No video in their respect came. It is a proxy war. Today everyone is saying he has two videos and he has four videos. This is the season of harassing and pressurising judges,” said AGP.
“Sometimes an audio, sometimes some concocted affidavit is released,” the attorney general said, referring to an affidavit by former Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Judge Rana Shamim in which he accused ex-CJP Nisar of colluding to deny bails to Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Nawaz before general elections 2018.
“If a facility is given to one PM, then why was it not given to Bhutto,” asked the AGP.
Salahud Din Ahmed, president SHCBA, said the AGP was holding bar associations responsible for every case. “See the statements given by Prime Minister Imran Khan against the judiciary and judges. It is now being said to either do accountability of the last 70 years or not at all to divert attention.”
The petitioner argued that the judiciary was being made controversial through different tactics and the court could stop this practice by probing the allegations against judges. At this, the attorney general responded that all matters of the past could be sent to parliament. “One appeal against conviction in the Avenfield Reference is being heard in this court. That one appeal has perplexed the entire judiciary,” Khalid Javed added.
While acknowledging that those whose cases would be affected by the alleged audiotape had not approached the court, Ahmed said his stance was that courts were being made controversial. The judiciary could stop that from happening by ordering an inquiry, he added.
The IHC chief justice observed that any audio or video could be constructed in today’s age of advanced technology. “Anybody can make audio and ask for an investigation. The court remarked if we declare the petition seeking an investigation into audio maintainable, then what will be the impact on the pending appeals?”
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.
