Credibility in the dock

On November 15, this newspaper broke the news of a signed and notarised affidavit by former CJ of Gilgit-Baltistan Rana Shamim wherein he had accused former CJP Saqib Nisar of judicial misconduct. Subsequently, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) issued show-cause notices to the editor-in-chief, editor and reporter of this newspaper. Since the matter is sub-judice, we will not be commenting on the proceedings but there are some questions that have been raised. An investigative reporter’s job is to find exclusive stories, have the necessary corroboration for the story, verify if the corroborating documents are legitimate and then file the story. In this case, a reporter got an exclusive scoop. He verified it by reaching out and confirming if the affidavit was real, while also reaching out to the other party for comment. The paper then ran the news. There was nothing added to the story that could have been perceived as an ‘opinion’.

How this somehow becomes something that “tends to influence the proceedings and determination in a pending matter” is rather baffling for both legal experts as well as the journalist community. A journalist’s job is to report something of public importance. And it is indeed of utmost public importance to know whether the judicial system of Pakistan is independent and whether justice is being dispensed without fear or favour. The affidavit’s allegations are extremely serious. And unfortunately this is not the first time we have seen such claims regarding the judiciary.

At the end of the day, it is really for the honourable court to decide whether the allegations by this recent affidavit hold any weight or not after evaluating the evidence – given that upholding justice is crucial for any state and for any political order that calls itself a democracy. Placing the press under doubt will hardly help do that. The judiciary needs to introspect because, at the end of the day, it is a senior former judge – and not the media – who has alleged that the chief justice of Pakistan was involved in influencing a case. This is serious business – and nothing short of serious investigation and inquiry is warranted. But taking to task the media – merely on account of reporting a story – will not answer the tough questions the judiciary should be asking itself and others right now. What is at stake is not about an individual or two nor is it about the credibility of the media but that of the judicial process. Why then must the journalist stand in the dock instead?