ahlam1399
06-16-2017, 01:47 AM
https://www.thenews.com.pk/assets/uploads/akhbar/2017-06-15/l_210729_035514_print.jpg Attorney general says court can**t give legal concession to anyone; apex court reserves verdict on photo leak issue
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court, while seeking the opinion of Attorney General for Pakistan on the volley of complaints lodged by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) probing the Panama Papers case against the Sharif family, observed on Wednesday that the court would **t be intimidated by threats.
The JIT, in its application filed with the apex court, had levelled serious allegations against the Prime Minister's House, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), Ministry of Law and Justice, National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and Intelligence Bureau (IB).
A three-member special bench of the PanamaLeaks implementation case, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and comprising Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsen, resumed hearing in the plea filed by Hussain Nawaz, son of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, seeking its direction to the JIT to stop the video recording of its proceedings relating to recording of statements and interrogation of witnesses.
The court directed Attorney General Ashter Ausaf to examine the JIT’s complaints and give his viewpoint today (Thursday) by 11:30am. “Please go through the impediments and problems highlighted by the JIT and give us your opinion as the impediments being created for the JIT amount to subverting our order,” Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan asked the 60 days. “We direct you to address the concerns of JIT and then lets us k**w what could be the remedy for it,” Justice Ejaz Afzal told the attorney general.
Attorney General Ashter Ausaf contended that the court can**t give a legal concession to anyone. The court reserved its judgment on the petition filed by Hussain Nawaz on his photo leak during the interrogation as well as video recording of the witnesses by the JIT as well his plea for appointing a judicial commission to ascertain as to who were responsible for leaking his photo.
During the course of his arguments, Khawaja Haris, counsel for Hussain Nawaz, said video recording of statements is violative of the mandate of Article 4 of the Constitution. He said that there is ** precedent where any video recording has been produced in any court by any investigating agency like NAB. He said if any such audio and video recording by any investigation agency is being practiced, it is equally illegal and that practice should be stopped. He submitted that video recording has some psychological impact on the witnesses to say and what he has to say as well. Moreover, he said, it is a substitute of a signature of the witness for audio and video recording. He said the JIT proceedings should **t be recorded on video.
Justice Ejaz Afzal observed that video recording can**t be made a substantial evidence but it is for the purpose of transcription to ensure accuracy. He further said the facts of the case are **t being affected by the procedure. He said the nature of statements also does **t change because of it.
Khawaja Haris submitted that leakage of photo of his client was originated from the video recording. He said there is confession on part of the JIT that it has ** control. He said that today (Thursday) the prime minister was also appearing before the JIT, then what is the guaranty that his video would **t be released and if it goes to the media and social media what could be done then.
“How much responsibility could the JIT take that more videos of the witnesses would **t be released to social media,” Khawaja Haris questioned. The counsel for Hussain Nawaz submitted that the manner in which the statements of a witness are to be recorded are provided in Section 161 and 162 of the Code Criminal Procedure 1898 (CrPC). He said the provisions of this code are applicable to investigations under any special or local law where ** procedure of its own is provided by the relevant statute.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that **thing terrible can happen if video recording is made, adding that they are **t in 1898 but in an era of latest tech**logy which can ensure accuracy. Khawaja Haris contended that the provisions of Section 161 and 162 CrPC neither envisage **r permit video-recording of interviews of individuals. He further contended that the JIT does **t enjoy any power at all and if such manner of recording of witnesses’ statements during investigation is to be made permissible under the law, it is for the legislature to enact law to that effect, but the JIT members themselves could **t unilaterally confer any such powers upon themselves.
When the court asked Ashter Ausaf for his comments over the arguments submitted by Khawaja Haris, the AG said the JIT has devised its own method and **t given by the court. He submitted that the court can**t possibly allow video or audio recording, adding that possibly video recording may be for the purpose of accuracy but there can be a potential harm.
At this, Justice Ijazul Ahsen observed that there is a gentleman sitting respectably in the proceedings before the JIT, then what harm could be. This video recording protects you rather than potentially harming you,” Justice Ijazul Ahsen told the AG.
Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed questioned Khawaja Haris as to what damage the leaking of his client’s picture had done to him? He further commented that the recording of proceedings will help him more than it can hurt him.
“This is an attempt to hamper the investigation,” Justice Ijazul Ahsen observed Meanwhile, when the counsel for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Fawad Chaudhry, who had filed an application before the apex court against the alleged derogatory campaign against the higher judiciary, brought some media comments into the **tice of court, the court observed that it was in their k**wledge that what comments are being made on media.
“We have been hearing comments through newspapers,” Justice Ejaz Afzal observed, adding that the media had already commented over Judgments and we k**w about the campaign. “But we are proceeding in accordance with law and we don’t care who says what,” Justice Ejaz Afzal remarked, adding that they will go in accordance with law.
Justice Ijazul Ahsen observed that they would look into it as data is being collected regarding the media comments over the matter. Ashter Ausaf said the apex court should restrain politicians and parties concerned in the matter from giving their comments over the case. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked the learned attorney general as to why don’t he advise the government and its ministers **t to comment on the court’s proceeding. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing until today (Thursday) at 11:30am.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/d_lRsiYW_hI
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/d_lRsiYW_hI/210729-Court-cant-be-intimidated-through-threats-SC)
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court, while seeking the opinion of Attorney General for Pakistan on the volley of complaints lodged by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) probing the Panama Papers case against the Sharif family, observed on Wednesday that the court would **t be intimidated by threats.
The JIT, in its application filed with the apex court, had levelled serious allegations against the Prime Minister's House, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), Ministry of Law and Justice, National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and Intelligence Bureau (IB).
A three-member special bench of the PanamaLeaks implementation case, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and comprising Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsen, resumed hearing in the plea filed by Hussain Nawaz, son of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, seeking its direction to the JIT to stop the video recording of its proceedings relating to recording of statements and interrogation of witnesses.
The court directed Attorney General Ashter Ausaf to examine the JIT’s complaints and give his viewpoint today (Thursday) by 11:30am. “Please go through the impediments and problems highlighted by the JIT and give us your opinion as the impediments being created for the JIT amount to subverting our order,” Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan asked the 60 days. “We direct you to address the concerns of JIT and then lets us k**w what could be the remedy for it,” Justice Ejaz Afzal told the attorney general.
Attorney General Ashter Ausaf contended that the court can**t give a legal concession to anyone. The court reserved its judgment on the petition filed by Hussain Nawaz on his photo leak during the interrogation as well as video recording of the witnesses by the JIT as well his plea for appointing a judicial commission to ascertain as to who were responsible for leaking his photo.
During the course of his arguments, Khawaja Haris, counsel for Hussain Nawaz, said video recording of statements is violative of the mandate of Article 4 of the Constitution. He said that there is ** precedent where any video recording has been produced in any court by any investigating agency like NAB. He said if any such audio and video recording by any investigation agency is being practiced, it is equally illegal and that practice should be stopped. He submitted that video recording has some psychological impact on the witnesses to say and what he has to say as well. Moreover, he said, it is a substitute of a signature of the witness for audio and video recording. He said the JIT proceedings should **t be recorded on video.
Justice Ejaz Afzal observed that video recording can**t be made a substantial evidence but it is for the purpose of transcription to ensure accuracy. He further said the facts of the case are **t being affected by the procedure. He said the nature of statements also does **t change because of it.
Khawaja Haris submitted that leakage of photo of his client was originated from the video recording. He said there is confession on part of the JIT that it has ** control. He said that today (Thursday) the prime minister was also appearing before the JIT, then what is the guaranty that his video would **t be released and if it goes to the media and social media what could be done then.
“How much responsibility could the JIT take that more videos of the witnesses would **t be released to social media,” Khawaja Haris questioned. The counsel for Hussain Nawaz submitted that the manner in which the statements of a witness are to be recorded are provided in Section 161 and 162 of the Code Criminal Procedure 1898 (CrPC). He said the provisions of this code are applicable to investigations under any special or local law where ** procedure of its own is provided by the relevant statute.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that **thing terrible can happen if video recording is made, adding that they are **t in 1898 but in an era of latest tech**logy which can ensure accuracy. Khawaja Haris contended that the provisions of Section 161 and 162 CrPC neither envisage **r permit video-recording of interviews of individuals. He further contended that the JIT does **t enjoy any power at all and if such manner of recording of witnesses’ statements during investigation is to be made permissible under the law, it is for the legislature to enact law to that effect, but the JIT members themselves could **t unilaterally confer any such powers upon themselves.
When the court asked Ashter Ausaf for his comments over the arguments submitted by Khawaja Haris, the AG said the JIT has devised its own method and **t given by the court. He submitted that the court can**t possibly allow video or audio recording, adding that possibly video recording may be for the purpose of accuracy but there can be a potential harm.
At this, Justice Ijazul Ahsen observed that there is a gentleman sitting respectably in the proceedings before the JIT, then what harm could be. This video recording protects you rather than potentially harming you,” Justice Ijazul Ahsen told the AG.
Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed questioned Khawaja Haris as to what damage the leaking of his client’s picture had done to him? He further commented that the recording of proceedings will help him more than it can hurt him.
“This is an attempt to hamper the investigation,” Justice Ijazul Ahsen observed Meanwhile, when the counsel for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Fawad Chaudhry, who had filed an application before the apex court against the alleged derogatory campaign against the higher judiciary, brought some media comments into the **tice of court, the court observed that it was in their k**wledge that what comments are being made on media.
“We have been hearing comments through newspapers,” Justice Ejaz Afzal observed, adding that the media had already commented over Judgments and we k**w about the campaign. “But we are proceeding in accordance with law and we don’t care who says what,” Justice Ejaz Afzal remarked, adding that they will go in accordance with law.
Justice Ijazul Ahsen observed that they would look into it as data is being collected regarding the media comments over the matter. Ashter Ausaf said the apex court should restrain politicians and parties concerned in the matter from giving their comments over the case. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked the learned attorney general as to why don’t he advise the government and its ministers **t to comment on the court’s proceeding. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing until today (Thursday) at 11:30am.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/d_lRsiYW_hI
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/d_lRsiYW_hI/210729-Court-cant-be-intimidated-through-threats-SC)