Audio leaks commission of inquiry
A former sitting Judge of Lahore HC, Justice Qayum was forced to resign by the Supreme Court in April 2001 when his audio leaks surfaced because “bias is floating on the surface of the record”. The Federal Government constituted a Commission of Inquiry under 2017 Act which states that, “the federal government shall, by notification in the official gazette, appoint the members of the commission and where more one member are so appointed, the federal government shall designate one of the members to be the chairman of the commission”.
In pursuance of this Act of parliament a 3-member Commission of Inquiry was constituted, comprising the senior-most judge of SCP and two CJ of HCs of Islamabad and Baluchistan. The 2017 Act requires that “Every member of the Commission and every officer appointed, or authorized by the Commission to exercise functions under this Act shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of PPC. Every judge qualifies to be as such.
To a layman like me there seems to be no perception of a legal requirement to seek permission or consent of the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Pakistan, as far as the written law is concerned.
This Commission would have revealed facts about authenticity of audio leaks allegedly involving relatives or friends of sitting judges and a former CM Punjab, along with son of a former CJP, alleging their involvements in political manoeuvring and influencing functioning of judiciary. These Audio Leaks need to be probed to restore confidence of citizens of Pakistan in our judiciary, which is one of three major constitutional pillars of the state, as per the 1973 Constitution, along with the Executive and Parliament being the other two.
It may certainly be a practice to seek consent of the CJP if any member of the bench is selected by the Federal Government for any judicial commission. However, it is also a practice and internationally accepted code of ethics that a judge” must decline resolutely to act in a case involving his own interest, including those of persons whom he regards as near relatives, or close friends”.
Further “to ensure justice is not only done, but is also seen to be done, a judge must avoid all possibility of his opinion, or action, in any case being swayed by any consideration of personal advantage, either direct or indirect”. What happened on 9 May in Pakistan is equivalent to 6 January 2021 events in Washington, when 2000 supporters of the former President marched to protest and attacked and vandalized Capitol Hill. Nobody was spared because the Writ of State was challenged.
Unfortunately, the Writ of State was also challenged in 2014 when PTV Islamabad was attacked, the NA compound vandalized and several uniformed policemen brutally tortured and beaten. It was again challenged in 2017 and it is time to deal sternly with such transgressions. Pakistan faces an existential threat from within and the Rule of Law must prevail and all individuals and state funded institutions must work their defined constitutional roles, so that Jinnah’s vision and the Pakistan, he promised, is restored.
—The writer is contributing columnist, based in Lahore.
Email: mtrqa213@gmail.com
