The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday stayed the framing of charges in contempt of court case against former Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Justice Rana Shamim, Jang Group owner Mir Shakilur Rehman and senior journalists Ansar Abbasi and Amir Ghori. Gave. news report Regarding an affidavit in which former Chief Justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar was accused of trying to delay the release from prison of the top PML-N leadership.
IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah gave Shamim and others time to “reflect” on the matter until the next hearing on January 20, saying that “admitting fault before the court brings honour.” He also rejected Attorney General Khalid Javed Khan’s request to allow Rahman – who tested positive for coronavirus – to participate in court proceedings via video link, and asked him to appear in court for indictment. will need to be.
During previous hearing, Shamim had opened his original affidavit – submitted earlier in December, more than a month later it was mentioned in a report published news – On the directions of the court. IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah asked Shamim whether the document was an affidavit of the former judge and whether he himself had sealed it, to which Shamim replied in the affirmative.
Following this, the IHC had on January 7 (today) decided to charge all alleged contempt.
In a written order issued last month, the Chief Justice of IHC had said appointed Attorney General Khalid Javed Khan as prosecutor in contempt of court case.
Shamim, his lawyers Latif Afridi, AG Khan, Gauri and Abbasi were present during today’s hearing. Islamabad’s Advocate General Niazullah Niazi and Additional Attorney General Qasim Wadood were also present.
At the beginning of the hearing, Justice Minallah said that the court believes in freedom of expression. He said a “narrative” is being created in relation to him, a bench of the High Court comprising Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Justice Mian Gul Hasan Aurangzeb – which is conducting a hearing petition Demanding the formation of an independent commission to ascertain the authenticity of an purported audio of Nisar and to investigate certain incidents before and after Nawaz Sharif’s sentencing – that the judges “decided under pressure”.
He said that such news is breaking the trust of the people.
Addressing Abbasi, Justice Minallah observed that the court was not questioning the integrity of the journalist, but trying to make them realize the impact of the news.
The judge said that Abbasi had said that the newspaper would have published the affidavit, even if it was “incorrect”. In an apparent reference to the ongoing appeal against the conviction of Maryam Nawaz in the Avenfield context, he asked whether the newspaper did not know which case the story about the affidavit would affect.
“Either you (Abbasi) say you didn’t know [about the influence the story would have] …Let’s frame the charges, then you can present your stand,” the judge said in response to Abbasi’s request that he not be charged.
Justice Minallah said that the rights of the people are of paramount importance to the court. Recalling the details of the case, Justice Minallah observed that a judge had reportedly spoken to CJP Nisar but he was not part of the bench hearing the case against Nawaz and his daughter.
Justice Kayani and Justice Aurangzeb were part of the bench and later my bench heard the appeal, Justice Minalla said. “This narrative may affect the three of us. The cases being heard [judges] It was fixed for two days later (from the date in the report) mentioned in the story.
The IHC judge said, “The court has tried to explain to you what mistake you did during the entire hearing.”
contradictory statement
Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) representative amicus curiae Nasser Zaidi appealed to the court not to frame charges and find a “middle way”.
Addressing Abbasi again, IHC Chief Justice Minallah said the journalist had said the newspaper would publish an affidavit “even if it was false”.
Abbasi replied, “If we know it’s false, we’ll report it as false.”
To this, Justice Minallah observed that there is a contradiction between Abbasi’s previous statement and the latest statement.
Journalist Amir Gauri said that the newspaper also publishes statements of the Prime Minister and ministers every day.
The judge said the affidavit should not have been published if the journalists did not know whether it was true or not.
“All the affidavits were published in the Justice Iftikhar Chowdhury case. I did not mention the name of the High Court in the story about the affidavit. I was careful but the court believed that all the judges had to look suspicious. was created.
,[Dawn editor] Zafar Abbas said that if he had got the affidavit, he would have done the same thing as Ansar Abbasi.
Justice Minallah replied that it was right that Abbas did not publish the affidavit or else there would be a contempt of court case against him, adding that Abbasi should have asked a lawyer about the effect of the affidavit.
‘Negligence is not contempt of court’
Advocate Faisal Siddiqui, who is also amicus curiae in the case, informed the court that contempt of court case can be made against Rana Shamim, but not against journalists.
He said there has been ‘negligence’ on the part of journalists in publishing the news, but it does not amount to contempt of court. He added that Abbasi should have waited to get more details before publishing the news.
Siddiqui asked Abbasi to back down from his current stand.
To this Justice Minallah replied that the problem is related to the journalist’s stand as well as lack of regret.
He observed that court decisions regarding the rights of the common man were circulated in the media, especially if the judgment pertained to a prominent figure. “A political narrative has been created to undermine public confidence in the court. What decision of this court has given the impression that it has been compromised or that the judges may be pressured?” he questioned.
Justice Friend Reema Omar informed the court that a journalist is required to take adequate care while publishing the story, noting that Abbasi had also included Nisar’s version in his report.
“The journalist took some degree of adequate care when publishing the story,” she said.
Omar recalled that former IHC judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui had speech In front of the Rawalpindi Bar in 2018, in which he made remarks about the involvement of some officials of the state’s executive organ, particularly the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), for allegedly manipulating the constitution of benches in judiciary matters Was. high Court.
The court expressed displeasure over Justice Minallah asking Justice Minallah in reference to the former judge of Omar, “Do you mean to say that the benches were formed on the instructions of someone else?”
Omar replied that he did not mean that the court asked him to return to his seat.
Shamim’s lawyer Latif Afridi told the court that he had known Abbasi for a long time and the journalist only attempted to “tell the truth to the public”. He reiterated that Abbasi had published the affidavit after receiving it from someone else as his client Shamim had not given the affidavit to anyone.
He said that Abbasi’s action in the present case may be due to lack of knowledge of the journalist.
Lawyers ‘don’t want action against journalists’
The Chief Justice of the IHC said that Afridi, at the present time, was arguing as an amicus curiae. “They want [ask us] To release the journalists and take action against their client,” Justice Minallah said.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Khalid Javed Khan argued that the stand from day one was that the role of the media was secondary. He added, “I am not talking politically but in a legal sense.”
AG Khan, without specifying who he was referring to, said, “A presumption is being made for quite some time. I can say that the person making this presumption is not present in the court.”
Which journalist Ansar Abbasi in the ‘leaked’ affidavit? report good was based, Shamim reportedly said that Nisar, during his visit to the GB, called an IHC judge and asked him to ensure that former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his daughter Maryam Nawaz were arrested on July 25, 2018. He was not released on bail before the general elections. , The affidavit was published as part of an investigation report news on 15 November
Justice Minallah later took note of the report and later issued show cause notices to Abbasi, Rehman, Ghori and Shamim under a contempt of court ordinance.
Affidavit ‘attempt to influence proceedings’
The contents of the affidavit, as reported in the daily, cast an indictment on the IHC and its judges, and also prima facie appear to be an attempt to influence the proceedings of the court and obstruct and interfere with the proper administration of justice. Judge Minallah wrote in the order issued on December 31
He pointed out that the document was not part of any judicial record and was not produced before any other authority. It appears that the news report was published without due attention by the newspaper.
According to the order, the timing of the execution of the affidavit and the publication of a news report immediately thereafter was a significant factor due to the pending judicial proceedings and its consequences for the administration of justice.
Justice Minallah wrote in his order, “The silence of the former Chief Justice of Gilgit-Baltistan for more than three years with regard to the alleged serious misconduct on the part of the former Chief Justice of Pakistan also casts doubt on his credibility and integrity.”
Initially it felt to the court that the role of Rehman, Gauri and Abbasi was only to the extent of failing to take due care before publishing a news report based on a leaked document. However, the stance of the latter two alleged sub-standards is that they were justified in publishing a document which had no apparent value, as it was in the ‘public interest’.
“This stance does not appear to be in line with international best practices in journalism,” wrote the chief justice of the IHC.
Many media bodies expressed concern Directing the journalists to prosecute on the directions of the court, he said that they should not be punished merely for performing their professional duties.