Who was mastermind of Faizabad sit-in, asks SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Wednesday said it wanted to know who the mastermind of the Faizabad sit-in was and rejected the government’s fact-finding committee, ordering Attorney-General for Pakistan (AGO) Mansoor Usman Awan to form a new inquiry commission soon pertaining to the implementation of the apex court verdict in the Faizabad sit-in case.

The fact-finding committee was constituted by the government on Friday to investigate the “role and directions” of all “concerned” officials in the management and handling of the sit-in in 2017 staged by the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan against the then-Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) government.

The orders for a new inquiry commission came during the hearing of a set of petitions against the February 6, 2019, judgment in the Faizabad dharna case.

On February 6, 2019, the SC bench comprising the now-Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Mushir Alam ruled that the intelligence agencies must not exceed their respective mandates.

Multiple pleas challenging the SC verdict on the Faizabad sit-in were filed by the federal government, Ministry of Defence, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra), Intelligence Bureau (IB), Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Pakistan Tehreek-Insaf (PTI) and others.

However, most of the petitioners retracted their applications recently, prompting the CJP Isa to ask “why is everyone so afraid to speak the truth?”

“Is it a joke to file a revision petition and withdraw it?” CJP Isa remarked during the hearing.

The court dismissed the review pleas filed by the IB, PTI, Defence Ministry, MQM and Ijazul Haq for withdrawal. It also issued notices to Sheikh Rashid over his failure to appear in court and adjourned the hearing till November 15.

A three-member SC bench comprising the CJP, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Athar Minallah heard the petitions challenging the ruling.

During the hearing, the top judge said the apex court wanted to know who was managing the Faizabad sit-in.

“We want to know who the mastermind of the Faizabad sit-in was,” he remarked, expressing annoyance over the decision not being implemented since 2019 when it was issued.

The chief justice, during the hearing, questioned what the incumbent government was doing on the implementation of the SC’s decision in the sit-in case.

“No one cares about this country,” CJP Isa remarked, while Justice Minallah said that the country is only for the elites and has been occupied by them for the last 70 years.

Taking a jibe at the government’s non-seriousness towards the case, CJP Isa said the court will close the case if the government asks it to do so.

“We will again wait for another tragedy like Faizabad to take place. Are we threatened by external enemies or internal threats?” he questioned, rejecting the government’s fact-finding committee.

The chief justice said anyone here gets up and blocks roads, then goes abroad after harming the country.

The chief justice’s remark hinted at Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) chief Tahirul Qadri’s participation in the 2014 sit-in by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) against the-then government of the PMLN in the Centre.

“Whether the purpose of importing a person was to overthrow the government of that time?” CJP Isa asked, further questioning if the said person’s services will be sought again in the future.

“Did this person from Canada pay for his own ticket?” he questioned, further asking if it was possible to determine this by the investigation committee.

“Can someone go to Canada and return to Pakistan after rioting?” Justice Isa asked.

“Did the government contact the Canadian government? If someone comes from Canada and stages a sit-in, wouldn’t anybody question him? Whether a Pakistani can go to Canada and stage a sit-in there?” the CJP questioned, adding that other countries protect their each and every citizen, while here no one cares. “Do whatever you want. Go to Dubai, or any other country. Our people are dishonoring our religion and country.”

“Is this right only for those who come from Canada? Who brought them? Now that you have returned to Canada, tell us … has the work you came for been completed?”

The chief Justice said that no one cares about the country here. This country is not for the elite only. For the past 70 years the elite have usurped this country. If importing a person was meant to dislodge the then government, and if someone’s services would be hired after importing him in the future too?

“Islam is the religion of peace, they are also defaming Islam,” the CJP pointed out, adding that there was no place for rioting in Islam.

During the hearing, Pemra’s counsel said he had only received ex-Pemra chairman Absar Alam’s affidavit.

In an affidavit submitted to the apex court on Tuesday, Alam had accused then-Director General of Counter Intelligence (DG-C) at the Inter-Services Intelligence Major General Faiz Hameed and his subordinates of controlling the ‘TV Channel policy’ through ‘unlawful means’.

The SC had sought fresh disclosures in the last hearing from anyone who was affected by the protest, to reveal new information in writing.

During the hearing, Alam alleged the spy agencies’ interference in media affairs, claiming the “people of intelligence agencies” used to call cable operators. “A Pemra member had received a call which was recorded,” he said.

When asked about the caller’s name, Alam said he could not confirm it because there was no caller ID or number on the call that was received.

Alam said that he received “verbal orders” for sacking journalist Najam Sethi, who used to host a programme on Geo News, and he was removed from the Pemra chief’s post when he refused to comply with the orders.

“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, adding that “It was known among journalists that whoever filed a petition against me in the LHC is a person of the agencies.”

He also stated that different petitions were also filed against him in three high courts.

Justice Minallah remarked during the hearing that the decision of the Faizabad sit-in case was landmark. The chief justice, however, disagreed saying that it was only according to the law and Constitution.

Earlier, when the proceedings started, the CJP directed the Attorney General to read the order of the previous hearing. After he finished reading, the chief justice said Absar Alam had levelled serious allegations against the employees of the Ministry of Defence.

Referring to former Pemra chief Alam’s statement, the CJP observed that all institutions, including the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), were not independent. He asked the AGP “do you want to withdraw the review petition as some other petitioners have done.” The AGP replied that a fact-finding committee had been constituted.

Chief Justice Isa said keeping the allegations of Absar Alam in view, this matter was related to him [federal government]. The CJP asked him when the fact-finding committee was established. The AGP said it was set up on Oct 19.

The chief justice then asked to whom the committee would present its report. The AGP said it would submit its report to the Ministry of Defence and Supreme Court. CJP Isa observed this whole exercise was an eyewash.

Justice Minallah asked the AGP whether he could justify what was happening in the country was according to the Constitution.

The chief justice intervened and said: “You are not capable of handling this matter. A gentleman is imported from outside and the whole country is paralysed.”

The CJP remarked that the application of TORs was so broad that everyone would be acquitted. Billions of rupees have been lost but the government does not care. “The TORs do not specify the method and scope of inquiry. We dictate and your job is to execute,” he said.

Justice Minallah asked the AGP who had constituted the committee. He replied that the federal government had formed it.

“Was the approval of the federal cabinet taken? Was this committee formed under the Inquiry Commission Act?” he inquired from the AGP.

Chief Justice Isa remarked that if this was not so, then the notification of the commission was a mere piece of paper.

“This committee too is illegal,” the CJP stated and asked why the inquiry was not conducted under the Inquiry Commission Act. “Let’s suppose that the committee summons Absar Alam but he doesn’t show up. What will you do then?” he asked.

A committee formed under the Inquiry Commission Act has powers and all institutions are bound to cooperate with it, the CJP added. “No one will appear before your committee,” he told the AGP.

AGP Awan assured the court that the government would work on the matter.

Justice Minallah stressed that the supremacy of the Constitution must be ensured at all costs. CJP Isa remarked that when one person gets affected, it makes others mindful of the consequences of doing something wrong.

The chief justice stressed that the inquiry should also reveal why everyone appealed against the 2019 verdict.

“You have an opportunity to get the inquiry done from a person who respects the Constitution,” Justice Minallah said, while Justice Isa said it was up to the government to choose whoever they wanted to conduct the probe.

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 Sahib, 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 Sahib, 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 a 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 CJP said that the ECP in its reply admits that there was a Rs1.5 million foreign funding to the TLP, adding that “it might be a meagre amount for the commission but for me it’s a big sum”.

Justice Minallah remarked that if the ECP wanted to take action, there was no need to form a committee. While the CJP told the ECP that it had just to explain that if a party could be registered as a political party. “Why would a person residing in a foreign country register a party? How a party is registered overnight,” he questioned.

Justice Isa said that some people say the order came from above. “You have to use your own mind and see from where two thousand ID cards were attached with the party registration [application],” he added.

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.