• AGP requests bench to wait for SC’s decisions on some questions under debate in apex court.
• Matter of fundamental rights of 25 million people of Pakistan, argues Sardar Latif Khosa.
• Matter to go to SC anyway; maybe our decision will be of assistance to the SC: Justice Babar.

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Monday gave Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan four weeks to answer the court’s five questions about the audio leaks.

Justice Babar Sattar set this deadline while hearing a plea filed by Najam Saqib — son of former chief justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar — against a special committee formed by National Assembly Speaker Raja Pervaiz Ashraf to probe audio clips allegedly featuring his voice.

Judicial Assistant Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan was also present at the court for today’s hearing as an amicus curiae.

During the hearing, the AGP said: “The matter is under hearing in the Supreme Court.” 

He further requested the bench to wait for answers to questions under debate in the apex court.

After this, Sardar Latif Khosa, the petitioner’s lawyer, came to the rostrum.

He argued that the issue at hand was a matter of the fundamental rights of the 25 million people of Pakistan.

“How can the government form a judicial commission without consulting the chief justice?” he asked, adding that the government should have consulted the CJP, who would have nominated the judges to be part of the inquiry.

Turning to the AGP, Justice Babar asked: “How much time will you need to answer court’s questions?”

He then gave the AGP four weeks.

“Please assist us with our five questions,” he said, adding: “The matter has to go to the Supreme Court later anyways. Maybe if we give a decision, it will be of assistance to the Supreme Court.”

He then extended the suspension of the summons issued by the special committee to Najam Saqib and adjourned the hearing till August 16.

The questions

1. Is parliament vested with legal authority to inquire into and investigate acts of private citizens who hold no public office, or whether assuming such power intrudes into the domain of the executive?

2. Does the Constitution and the rules framed under it to regulate parliamentary procedure vest in the office of the speaker National Assembly the authority to constitute a special committee to investigate actions attributable to a private citizen who is not a member of parliament or a public officeholder?

3. Does the Constitution or statutory law empower the executive, and in the present case, the federal government, to record or surveil phone calls or telecommunication between private citizens, and if so the supervisory and regulatory legal regime within which such recording and surveillance can take place?

4. To the extent that recording of phone calls is permitted, which public authority or agency is authorized to do so, how is the right of a citizen to liberty and privacy to be balanced against the interest of the State in recording phone calls or undertaking surveillance and which agency is vested with legal authority to undertake such balancing exercise? and

5. In the event that there is no legal sanction to tap phones, record telecommunication between citizens or undertake surveillance, which public authority or agency is to be held liable for such surveillance and encroachment over the right of citizens to liberty and privacy and/or release of illegally recorded private conversations to the public?

The petition

The petition filed by Najam on Tuesday requested the IHC to suspend the proceedings of the committee and stop it from taking any punitive action. He contended that the alleged audios breached his privacy and it was illegal surveillance. He requested the court to declare that recording a private person’s personal conversation was a violation of basic human rights.

He further said the committee formed by the NA speaker to probe the audios was illegal.

The summons issued by the committee secretary without any meeting of the committee — asking Najam, his father and two other persons to appear in person — are also illegal, the petition claimed.

The IHC registrar’s office, however, had raised objections to the petition saying that the matter was already pending with the Supreme Court. The registrar also contended that two different types of pleas could not be made in a single petition. It said, on the one hand, the petitioner had challenged the notification of the committee while, on the other hand, he also requested the court to declare the recording of audio as illegal.

Special committee

NA Speaker Raja Pervez Ashraf on May 3 set up a special committee to investigate Najam’s audio, in which he can be heard selling a Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) ticket to a candidate of the Punjab provincial assembly, claiming that his father had to work hard to get the ticket sanctioned — according to a notification from the assembly.

Mohammad Aslam Bhootani was appointed as chairman of the committee, which includes Shahida Akhtar Ali, Muhammad Abubakar, Muhammad Barjees Tahir, Sheikh Rohale Asghar, Syed Hussain Tariq, Naz Baloch, and Khalid Hussain Magsi.