Audio leaks inquiry commission never met in over a year: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court, in a written order on audio leaks case, has regretted that a three-man inquiry commission formed to probe the veracity of audio leaks was never fixed for hearing after its last hearing on May 27, 2023.

A two-judge SC bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, which was seized with the government’s appeal against the June 25 order of the Islamabad High Court on the petitions filed by Bushra Bibi and Najamus Saqib, the son of former Chief Justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar, issued a five-page order after Monday’s hearing.

The order recalled that the Justice Isa-led inquiry commission appointed by the government had started its proceedings on May 22, but the SC stayed its proceedings on May 26. The commission then postponed its further proceedings until the petitions against its formation are decided.

Appointed under Section 3 of the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act 2017, the inquiry commission on audio leaks also comprised the then Balochistan High Court Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Aamer Farooq.

Govt-appointed body stopped working till decision on petitions against its formation

The commission was to inquire into the veracity of the audio leaks allegedly concerning the judiciary, conversations of former Punjab CM Chaudhry Parvez Elahi with lawyers regarding a former SC judge and fixation of some cases before a particular bench, with Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, between ex-CJP Saqib Nisar and a senior lawyer Khawaja Tariq Rahim on the outcome of a case (Imran Khan’s May 9 arrest from the premises of Islamabad High Court) before a particular bench of the Supreme Court, between the former premier and his party colleague about their links in the SC, between mother-in-law of the ex-CJP and a lawyer’s wife on cases before the SC and hoping for unconstitutional rule, between son of ex-CJP and his friend Abuzar mentioning his father in a political role etc.

The five-page order recalled how Additional Attorney General (AAG) Chaudhry Aamir Rehman argued that the jurisdiction exercised by the high court was beyond the scope of Article 199 of the Constitution and to substantiate relied upon previous SC judgments like 2023 Messrs Sadiq Poultry (Pvt) Ltd and 2018 Jahanzaib Malik to establish that the powers used by the high court were suo motu which cannot be exercised by the high court in the light of judgements.

The AAG contented that the five questions framed on May 31, 2023 by the high court were not on the basis of the pleadings of any of the parties but the court on its own framed the questions which were against the mandate of Article 199 of the Constitution. He argued that the high court had no jurisdiction while hearing a matter under Article 199 to go into a comprehensive inquiry which required fact finding and further it was a matter of investigation.

The AAG reminded the basic challenge before the high court was regarding the proceedings initiated by the committee constituted by then NA speaker, but the proceedings lapsed when the then national assembly was dissolved on Aug 9, 2023. Thereafter, there was no need to further proceed with the petition filed by Mian Najamus Saqib.

The order said even the high court did not bother to appreciate the stance of Bushra Bibi that she had pleaded with regard to audio leaks in her petition by contending that the audio leaks had been fabricated, tempered with by trimming, cannibalizing and piecing together distinct parts of the conversations to convey incorrect and inaccurate massaging.

“The (high) court was bound to first see and check the veracity of this fact and thereafter proceed with the matter,” the five-page SC order said.

Consequently, the apex court grant leave to consider the points highlighted and issued noticed to the respondents with a direction that the high court order would remain suspended and further proceedings would remain stayed.When the AAG urged the SC to suspend the May 29, 2024 interim order of the high court, the SC noted that the order was not extended by the high court in its next hearing on June 25, therefore there was no ground for its suspension.

Published in Dawn, August 21st, 2024