ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Monday issued a written order in the review petitions filed in connection with the Faizabad sit-in-case.
A three-member bench of the apex court — headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and Justice Athar Minallah — issued the written order of the hearing held on November 1.
According to the order, the court noted down that the CMA filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan, comprising 59 pages, purported to show that the ECP had implemented the judgment, and attached a report of a ‘Scrutiny Committee’, comprising director general law as its chairman, director general political finance and deputy controller general of accounts as its members.
The report notes that requisite information had not been provided by the TLP, and that discrepancies, deficiencies and abnormalities were noted in its affairs, and it was called upon to provide, amongst others, details of its bank accounts,” says the written order.
The order noted that the report also noted that the TLP had not disclosed as to who had provided it with funds amounting to Rs15,86,324 (Rs1.58 million) ; however, the TLP stated that it did not want to disclose.
The court was informed that despite its own said findings, the Scrutiny Committee concluded that no C.R.P. No.266 of 2019, etc irregularity or abnormality was found.
The written order further states that the report was submitted to the ECP, which without considering the said findings, simply followed what the Scrutiny Committee had recommended, and did so without its own independent application of mind.
The ECP also went on to categorise the said unaccounted for amount, which constituted about 30 percent of the TLP’s total funding, as peanuts, says the written order adding that at this stage the counsel representing the ECP states that the ECP may be given another opportunity to attend to the matter in accordance with the Election Act, 2017 and the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and seeks one month’s time to do the needful. Order accordingly.
“Therefore, since the ECP has undertaken to examine the matter of TLP afresh in accordance with the law, CMA 9256 is disposed of in such terms,” the court noted down in its order.
The written order further states that the attorney general submitted that since the federal government accepts the judgment, and wants to implement it, he will be recommending to the federal government to constitute a commission under Pakistan Commissions of Inquiry Act, 2017 (‘the Act’) and, sought an adjournment to constitute such commission and place before us the requisite notification.
Referring to the CMA filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) on 11th March 2019, the court noted down that the PTI had sought to be arrayed as a party, adding that on the last date of hearing learned Syed Ali Zafar, representing the PTI, had stated that, ‘PTI does not want to press its application, to become a party, as upon reflection it realised that the judgment dated February 6, 2019 was in accordance with the law.’ The learned counsel reaffirmed this position.
The court noted that the applicant decided four and a half years ago to become a party and then decided otherwise, and that the judgment accorded with the law. Accordingly, CMA 3575, is dismissed as not pressed.
Similarly, the court noted that in his CMA filed by Absar Alam Haider, former chairman Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra), leveled serious allegations against an individual and his unnamed subordinates.
“We enquired from Mr. Haider whether he is aggrieved by anything stated in the judgment of this Court dated 6 February 2019 (‘the Judgment’) and he stated that its paragraphs 35 C.R.P. No.266 of 2019, etc 2 and 36 create an impression that during the period he was Chairman, Pemra, he had not performed his statutory duty”, says the written order.
The court noted that when it had heard this matter Pemra was represented before the Court and the letters/material attached with CMA 9231 were not presented.
The operative part of the Judgment with regard to Pemra is paragraph 53 wherein two directions in its sub-para (9) and (10) were issued. When asked, Mr. Haider stated that he did not disagree with them”, the written order stated, adding that Mr. Haider was not named in the Judgment nor was any blame personally attributed to him.
The court noted down that he was asked whether he would be prepared to repeat the serious allegations leveled by him in CMA 9231 before the said individuals, and be subjected to cross-examination, if the federal government decided to constitute a commission of inquiry, he answered that he was prepared to do so. “CMA 9231 is disposed of with the said observations,” says the order. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing until November 15.