ISLAMABAD: The federal government on Tuesday disputed the contents of a leaked letter, purportedly written by Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Babar Sattar, which alleged that security agencies used “intimidation tactics” in the case involving the wiretapping of audio leaks. high court.
Earlier today, an excerpt of a leaked letter purportedly attributed to a high court judge was circulated on social media, with PTI reporting that it highlighted “interference in the audio leak case”.
The excerpt said that if the audio was leaked, the IHC alerted the heads of state intelligence agencies and institutions, ministries and media regulators.
“The question before the court is whether there is a legal regime allowing for the surveillance of citizens,” the letter to the IHC’s chief justice said. “At some point during the pendency of the case, I received messages on behalf of top officials in the security establishment asking me to ‘step back’ from an extensive investigation into the existence and modus operandi of surveillance.
“I paid no attention to such scare tactics and did not find that such reports posed a risk of substantial harm to the administration of justice. The current smear campaign targeting PTA (Pakistan Telecommunication Authority) cases appears to be a scare tactic to influence the court proceedings.
The development comes amid hearings at the IHC on alleged audio leaks and a separate case on social media contempt campaigns targeting judges, as well as suo motu proceedings at the apex court on alleged intelligence interference in judicial affairs.
At a press conference in Islamabad on the matter, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, without naming Justice Sattar, said that the contents of the IHC judge’s letter to IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq had surfaced and said it was an “internal communication” of the court .
“The content of that letter is reported in such a way that it gives the impression that there was interference in the IHC and that a message was sent to that judge regarding a specific case, or he understood it that way, or he was sent from such a person he did not have.
The AGP said he felt it necessary to provide an explanation on the matter, noting that the judge himself said in a leaked excerpt that he did not feel intimidated by the report “as he understood it” as an act of interference with the principles of justice.
“His (judge) referred to the social media campaign [against him] in the letter. But since this is a matter that is now in the media, I as the AGP felt it necessary to explain the matter because there is an impression that there is some kind of breakdown in the relations between the judiciary and the executive, due to which the issue is moving forward.”
The AGP said there are some “sensitive matters” of the state where it is necessary to communicate between different institutions. He added that it was the office of the AGP or the provincial advocates general who forwarded such communications.
“In relation to this case, I should clarify that a request has been made for a briefing on our surveillance capabilities and other national security matters, both internal and external, to be conducted in camera so that (the capabilities of the security agencies) do not take place. into the public domain.”
He said that for a country like Pakistan, which has hostile neighbors, it is necessary to ensure that such information is not disclosed.
“There was definitely communication, but unfortunately there was an impression that was somehow sent or understood that the case was going to go in a certain direction. There was absolutely nothing like that.”
The AGP said his office and the advocates-general acted as bridges for “legitimate” demands between institutions, adding that neither the government nor any other state institution could interfere in the affairs of the judiciary.
“I completely reject this perception.
The AGP added that to his knowledge, no official from any security agency had made that kind of direct contact, nor could he have done so given that the contact to request the sharing of sensitive information was initiated by his own office. – hearing on camera only.
He urged the media to present the “proper context” of the letter. Shortly afterwards, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar and Information Minister Attaullah Tarar also spoke at a press conference on the letter in Islamabad.
Azam said the excerpt gave the impression that “Pakistan’s intelligence or defense establishments somehow want to interfere or interfere with the work of judges”.
Azam echoed the AGP’s claim about the requirement that surveillance briefings be kept on camera in case of audio leaks, and agreed with Awan’s position, saying, “This is the law around the world and here, and it should be.” also.
“That’s why when you’re communicating through legal officers or AGP officers or solicitors-general, then it’s traditionally better to leave some matters in the loop for such requests.”
Azam said the courts have always heard such requests and should continue to do so as it is in the larger public interest.
“What hurts me is the interpretation of this matter in such a way that it appears as if there is an interference with the judiciary.”
Presenting the position of the government and institutions, the Law Minister said that an independent judiciary is what moves the country forward, but it also has certain responsibilities considering the context and challenges of the country.
“All institutions should have some space for themselves [otherwise we should work in our own domains.” If any institution wants to do the work of executive, defense and parliament and we have to transfer all the burden to the judiciary and if we want to solve every matter in the courts, let they decide how legislation and appointments should be made and what the country’s foreign and internal security policy is then it cannot be.
“That is neither the will of the Constitution, nor are there any such countries. The country needs unity to escape this financial crisis.”
Meanwhile, Attaullah said: “If a message from the AGP, who is a prosecutor, is sent to the in-camera briefing, then you write a letter on it saying, ‘I was told to back off,’ after he misunderstood it.” and taken out of context is not rooted in reality at all.
“If there was a request for an in-camera briefing, then it was for national security, and I want to make it clear that there will be no compromise on national security.”
Without naming the IHC judge, the information minister said, “Don’t take it that far. Understand that the issue is national security and increasing qu
