The Supreme Court has explained its decision not to live-stream a case related to the amendments made to the National Accountability Ordinance.
“There are also instances of cases which were initially live streamed but in the interest of justice it was discontinued,” the SC order said on Saturday and added that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa advocate general’s application did not cite any law in its support.
To many people’s surprise, the apex court did not live-stream the case proceedings when PTI founder Imran Khan appeared through a video link on May 16. But the former prime minister’s picture from the hearing was leaked online, prompting concerns from the top court.
The case is related to the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAO) – the law that governs the country’s top graft buster.
Amendments were made to the accountability laws by the then-Pakistan Democratic Movement-led government in 2022. They included reducing the term of the NAB chairman and prosecutor general to three years, limiting NAB’s jurisdiction to cases involving over Rs500 million, and transferring all pending inquiries, investigations, and trials to the relevant authorities.
Khan had filed a petition in 2022 challenging the amendments, claiming that the changes to the NAB law were made to benefit the influential accused persons and legitimise corruption.
In its appeal, the federal government had requested the apex court to set aside the September 15 majority judgement that had declared amendments to the NAO illegal.
On September 15, 2023, the top court by a majority of two-to-one ruled that the public representatives who benefited from the amendments made by the Pakistan Democratic Movement government in the NAO would have to face corruption references again.
In the May 30 hearing, the Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, Justices Athar Minallah, Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, and Hasan Azhar Rizvi decided in a 4:1 ruling not to stream the proceedings live. Justice Minallah dissented from it.
In its six-page written order, the SC said: “In live-streaming cases, there is always a possibility that the facility may be misused or exploited for ulterior or personal purposes. There is also the possibility of grandstanding while the nation watches. This court must be vigilant against such misuse and/or exploitation.”
It added: “When the head of a political party wants to be heard, who is not an advocate of this court, there is a real probability that these hearings may be used for political purposes and point scoring and in respect of matters which do not concern these appeals. This was a paramount consideration when we had dismissed the application. And, our apprehension proved correct later in the day.”
When Khan spoke in the Thursday hearing, the order said that he also “mentioned other cases, the general elections held on February 8, a commission of inquiry and his incarceration”.
All such matters had “nothing to do” with the subject matter of the appeals.
“This cannot be permitted as it would thwart the proper administration of justice. Commenting on matters not under consideration may affect public perception. The rights of those who are not before us, including their fundamental right to fair trial and due process, may also be affected.”
The court explained that its decision to live-stream some proceedings depended on them being a matter of public interest and 40 hearings had so far been broadcast live.
“This initiative was taken to provide to the general public and lawyers throughout Pakistan direct access to the courtroom in respect of matters of public interest. The objective was manifold, including: educational, openness and transparency, forestalling misreporting or onesided reporting, facilitating lawyers on how best to articulate their propositions, how to effectively conduct cases and how to behave in the courtroom.”
The court also noted that “the public has shown little or no interest in the matter of whether the amendments made to the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, are sustainable on the constitutional plane, nonetheless this court, on its own volition was live-streaming the hearing of these appeals.”
Also, read this
SC adjourns hearing of petitions against Practice and Procedure bill till Oct 3
It mentioned that the former prime minister had not attended 53 hearings of the case and neither he nor the KP government had requested for the proceedings to be broadcast live.
Khan was now being represented by his legal team and thus there was no need for him to be provided with the video link facility, it said and added: “However, this facility is being continued.”
“In conclusion, we would like to add that while a request to live broadcast or live-stream may be submitted, and may also be objected to, it is clarified that this, as matters presently stand, is in the exclusive domain of this court,” the order concluded.
