In a significant turn of events, Justice Babar Sattar of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has formally communicated to Chief Justice Aamer Farooq regarding purported interference in the court’s proceedings by the security establishment, according to sources familiar with the matter.
In a letter addressed to CJ Farooq, Justice Sattar detailed instances where he allegedly received messages on behalf of high-ranking officials within the security establishment, urging him to refrain from extensive scrutiny of surveillance methods in the audio leak case.
The reported interference prompted Justice Sattar to adhere to the IHC’s recommendations aimed at preventing such meddling. Following a unanimous decision by IHC judges, any interference in judicial affairs is now subject to potential contempt proceedings, as per the Supreme Court’s directive from April 3.
In line with these measures, Justice Sattar promptly reported the alleged interference, as mandated. He stated that despite facing what he termed as “threatening tactics,” he remained steadfast in his commitment to upholding justice, emphasizing that such actions did not deter him from his judicial responsibilities.
The matter takes a broader scope as Justice Sattar was among six judges who previously petitioned the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) seeking guidance on intelligence agencies’ purported interference in court affairs in March.
In response to these claims, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan addressed the issue, refuting any notion of deteriorating relations between the judiciary and the executive. He clarified that communication between state institutions on sensitive matters is essential given the prevailing security challenges in Pakistan.
AGP Awan emphasized that the judge’s request for an in-camera briefing in the audio leak case was misconstrued as an attempt to sway the case, asserting that it was merely a procedural matter aimed at ensuring transparency and security.
Following AGP Awan’s remarks, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar echoed similar sentiments, indicating that the AGP’s office had sought an in-camera briefing from the IHC, dispelling any insinuation of undue influence on the court proceedings.
The unfolding situation underscores the delicate balance between judicial independence and the imperative of maintaining national security, raising pertinent questions about the extent of permissible intervention in judicial affairs.
