ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Tuesday questioned as to why none of the Sharif family members invoked the jurisdiction of the high court for getting relief for Nawaz Sharif in his conviction after the video scandal involving an accountability court judge came to surface.
The court directed the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to complete within three weeks its investigation in the controversial video leak involving accountability court judge Arshad Malik and asked the attorney general to share its outcome with it.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and comprising Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Umar Ata Bandyal heard three petitions seeking conducting an inquiry into the controversial video involving Arshad Malik.
During the course of hearing, the chief justice said they were not in a hurry and looking forward to examine the matter from all aspects. He however observed that all options were available with the learned Islamabad High Court which was the constitutional authority and could issue directions for probing the matter as well as supervising the affairs of the accountability court. The chief justice wondered as to why any member of the Sharif family did not approach the learned high court for getting relief to Nawaz Sharif in his conviction after the video scandal.
“Those who are interested for getting relief for Nawaz Sharif should have approached the high court wherein his appeal is already pending against his conviction”, the chief justice remarked, adding that the best option is to approach the learned high court. “If we interfere, what will be the effects, will it prejudice or help the case”, the CJP questioned, adding that in one case, the judge has convicted Nawaz Sharif and in another acquitted. He said the leaked-video scandal along with the alleged misconduct of the accountability court judge will not go unattended. “As regards the conduct of the judge, we know what should be done but at the same time, we are not in a hurry and examining all options as to what we could do at this stage”, the CJP remarked. The chief justice questioned as to whether it was appropriate for judge Malik to visit Jati Umra to meet Nawaz and his son in Haram Sharif (Saudi Arabia) after sentencing him. Justice Umar Ata Bandial observed that the court had to ascertain the truth of allegations levelled by both sides while maintaining the sanctity of the court.
Meanwhile, in pursuance of the court order, Attorney General Anwar Mansoor assisted the court on various options available under different statutes through which the matter in hand could be inquired.
The AG while assisting the court advised that the court could avail six options to deal with the instant matter and opposed the filing of the petitions before the court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution as well as formation of a judicial commission to probe the instant matter, saying there was no need for its constitution because a separate forum exists to deal with such matters.
The AG contended that the court could adopt six options to deal with the instant matter including FIA, NAB, invoking provisions of Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), restrictions imposed by Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), commission constituted by the apex court and judicial commission constituted by the government as well. “Another option we may choose by dismissing all the petitions filed seeking our direction to probe the instant matter,” the chief justice replied in a lighter tone.
The attorney general informed that Arshad Malik had filed a complaint with the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) on July 17, 2019 under Prevention of Electronic Crime Act 2016 on which the FIA Cyber Crime Section on the same day lodged an FIR at Islamabad in which Provisions 20, 21 and 24 of the said Act were incorporated. The AG informed the court about the volume of sentences may be awarded to anyone under Sections 21 for publically exhibiting anything.
He said under Section 20 of the Electronic Crime Act 2016, the punishment is three years imprisonment and one can be fined Rs I million while making video of someone and for blackmailing, the punishment is five years imprisonment and Rs 5 million fine. Similarly, he mentioned Section 13 of the Prevention of the Electronic Crime Act 2016, having sentences of three years imprisonment and fine of Rs 250,000.
The AG informed the court that the FIA after filing of the FIR had arrested Mian Tariq Mahmood, a central suspect whom judge Malik had accused of making the controversial video concerning him. The FIA and has taken his judicial remand twice, the AG added. As per investigation, the AG submitted that Mian Tariq had sold the video to Saleem Raza, but he claimed that the cheque he received in exchange for the video could not be cashed. The AG further submitted that the FIA investigation was in progress and digging out more facts.
The chief justice asked the AG as to when the FIA investigation will be completed, the AG replied that it might take at least three weeks to conclude, adding that he was leaving abroad and would return on next Monday and had called the DG FIA for a meeting.
“We are considering different options in this matter,” the CJP said, asking the AG if he could share the outcome of the FIA investigation. "We cannot rely on jumping in the dark and there are people who might want us to jump in the dark but we will not do that,” the CJP said.
The chief justice directed completion of the investigation within three weeks and asked the attorney general to submit the outcome of the said investigation and adjourned the hearing.
