ISLAMABAD: Since press intimidation concerns important fundamental rights, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa stated on Monday that it will not be allowed at all. After a protracted hearing on the intimidation of journalists, he observed while giving an order. The Press Association of the Supreme Court (PAS) challenged “roving inquiries” the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had launched against journalists on the nebulous grounds of a “malicious campaign” against the superior judiciary and its judges. The CJP led a three-judge bench that included Justices Irfan Saadat Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan.
Liaquat Ali Chattha, a former commissioner of Rawalpindi, made accusations that reverberated throughout the trial. On February 17, Mr. Chattha accused the CJP and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) of working together to rig the general elections scheduled for February 8. The CJP expressed concern during Monday’s hearings that the former commissioner, who later withdrew his statements, had made unsubstantiated claims against him that were carried by all television networks.
The CJP stated that it is standard procedure throughout the world for news stories to be independently confirmed before being broadcast and that no reporter had questioned the complainant about the evidence he had supporting his allegations. The CJP regretted, “When the credibility of the institutions is tarnished, we all get affected,” and added that Article 19, which protects the right to free speech, does not grant permission to make unfounded accusations. Additionally, CJP Isa voiced and denied his grave disapproval of the reports on media harassment provided by the FIA and Islamabad Police.
The court also voiced its dissatisfaction with the police for failing to apprehend the perpetrators of journalist Matiullah Jan’s kidnapping in January 2020. The court pointed fingers at Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan, noting that although the crime was captured on cameras set up as part of the Safe City Project, the police were unable to identify the perpetrators. This is what kind of inspector general? The CJP noted that “he ought to be removed,” noting that it seemed the government was acting as an enabler.
The AGP did, however, guarantee the court that a thorough report would be submitted shortly. Also, after assuring the court that they were prepared to provide all required assistance with their investigation, the police abandoned their claim that journalists were not assisting with the prosecution. Speaking on behalf of PAS, senior counsel Salahuddin Ahmed cited the FIA’s notifications to several journalists accusing them of waging a hostile campaign against judges.
When the court asked if these notices had been sent to the media regarding a report provided by judges or the Supreme Court registrar, AGP acknowledged that no such complaint had been filed. According to the attorney, the purpose of the false information contained in the police report against journalists, which was submitted by the Inspector of Cybercrimes in accordance with sections 9, 10, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 (PECA), was media intimidation.
Sections 9 and 10 of the PECA, according to the AGP, might not be pertinent to the issue. He promised the court he would investigate and provide his advice. Mr. Ahmed also brought up the JIT that the government had established by Section 30 of the PECA, citing the co-optation of intelligence agency officials, and emphasized that their inclusion was prohibited by law.
