The Supreme Court on Monday criticized the Faizabad sit-in inquiry commission’s report as deeply disappointing, noting its failure to adhere to the specified terms of reference (TORs) and its exploration of topics outside its jurisdiction.
A three-member bench led by Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa and including Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan heard the review pleas on the apex court’s judgment in 2019 on the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) sit-in in Faizabad, Rawalpindi.
In November last year, the government had announced a three-member commission to identify those who planned, financed and supported the sit-in. The commission, led by Syed Akhtar Ali Shah and including Tahir Alam Khan and Khushal Khan, submitted its report last month.
During the hearing, which was broadcast live, the chief justice remarked that the inquiry commission prepared a report based on statement of Lt-Gen (retd) Faiz Hameed. He added that he was disappointed with the commission’s report.
The top judge wondered whether anyone cared about how much losses did Pakistan suffer due to the sit-in? The attorney general for Pakistan (AGP) said that Faiz Hameed had told the commission that it was not the responsibility of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to look into the matter of financial support.
Then whose responsibility is it, the chief justice asked. In one paragraph of the report, it was stated that it had not been the ISI’s responsibility to look into financial matters and in another paragraph it was written that no evidence of TLP’s financial support has been found, he added.
He observed that the commission did not make any findings on anything, adding that the commission assumed the power of parliament and the court but it did not do the work it was supposed to do. He added that whether the commission was formed to “say thank you” to them?
The chief justice asked the AGP whether the commission called anyone on behalf of the TLP. The AGP replied that there was no statement of any member of the TLP in the report. “This report is very disappointing,” the chief justice remarked.
The chief justice further observed that it seemed that the report had been prepared from home, adding that the members of the inquiry commission did not even come out of their offices. The English used in the report was also wrong, he further said.
It seemed, the chief justice continued, the purpose of the entire inquiry commission report was to give a clean chit to Faiz Hameed, who gave an edict and the commission agreed. He then asked the AGP whether Faiz Hameed was called in his personal capacity by the commission.
The AGP replied that the commission had sent a questionnaire to Faiz Hameed, which was answered. The chief justice expressed his surprise that the retired general was not called by the commission despite his name being mentioned in the apex court’s decision.
He also asked the AGP whether any money was paid to the commission.
The AGP replied that they were paid but he could not immediately tell the court about the actual amount. He said that he would take instructions from the federal government on this issue.
The chief justice remarked that the commission misconceived its jurisdiction that coming to Islamabad for protest was constitutionally prohibited, adding that the investigators did not look at this aspect of the judgment, which stated that peaceful protest within the ambit of the law was a constitutional right.
The top judge of the country expressed his disappointment that the commission fuelled provincialism in the report. He asked the AGP whether the federal government endorsed the commission’s report. The AGP replied that in his view, the report had no substance and it did not pay much attention to the TORs.
The AGP told the court that he would file a report about the government’s view on the report. The court directed the AGP to file a report on behalf of the federal government in two weeks whether the government wished to make this report public or not.
The court also said that the government should inform the commission members about the court orders, adding that the members could respond to the judicial observation in writing or by appearing in court. The hearing was adjourned for two weeks.
COMMENTS (1)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ