NAB amendments case: SC explains reasons for not live-streaming proceedings

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Saturday explained its decision to not live-stream the proceedings of NAB amendments case, stating that these hearings may be used for “political purposes and point scoring”, ARY News reported.

The top court issued a detailed order on Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) government’s plea, seeking live streaming of intra-court appeals (ICAs) moved by the federal government against the court’s September 15 majority judgment striking down amendments to National Accountability Bureau (NAB) ordinance.

In its written order, the Supreme Court 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 further stated that when the head of a political party wants to be heard, 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”, it added.

The court noted that when PTI founder Imran Khan – who challenged the amendments made in 2022 – spoke in the Thursday hearing, he also “mentioned other cases, the general elections held on February 8, a commission of inquiry and his incarceration”.

“This cannot be permitted as it would thwart the properad ministration 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”.

Addressing the KP Attorney General’s (AG) application, the top court stated that the only reason given in its support was that the decision to not live-stream the NAB case proceedings amounted to “discrimination”.

“However, the reason is factually incorrect because only a very few cases have been/are live-streamed. There are also instances of cases which were initially live-streamed but in the interest of justice, it was discontinued. The application also does not cite any law in its support,” it said.

The Supreme Court noted 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.”

However, the court said “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.”

The order also pointed out that Imran had not attended 53 hearings of the case and neither he nor the KP government had requested for the proceedings to be broadcast live.

It also pointed out that Imran 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. “However, this facility is being continued,” the order added.

It continued that the KP government was also not a party in the appeals and the advocate general had not explained “why the sudden interest, or desire, for live-streaming, when his government did not join the hearings.”

“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.

Review petitions

The federal government filed the review plea in the NAB amendments case under the SC Practice and Procedure Law and made the Federation of Pakistan, National Accountability Bureau and PTI founder respondents.

Citing no violation of basic rights with the NAB amendments, the federal government pleaded with the SC to nullify its decision in the case. “Legislation is the right of the Parliament,” the plea said.

Verdict

In a majority 2-1 verdict, the top court approved Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan’s petition challenging amendments made to the country’s accountability laws during the tenure of the previous Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM)-led government.

The top court also restored graft cases against public office holders that were closed down following the amendments to National Accountability Bureau laws.