- Harris says Hussain’s video can be leaked, as JIT has no control over CCTV cameras
- Special bench directs attorney general to examine JIT report, submit response today
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment on a petition seeking stoppage of a video recording of the proceedings of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) in the Panama Papers case and leaking of Hussain Nawaz photograph.
A three-member special implementation bench of the apex court headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and comprising Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsan heard the case filed by Hussain, a businessman and elder son of the prime minister.
Appearing before the bench, Hussain’s counsel Advocate Khawaja Haris Ahmad said that video recording of JIT proceedings should not be allowed. He said that JIT had no control over the CCTV cameras. He expressed concern over leaking of his client’s picture and warned the court of the possibility of video being leaked in the future which would have much greater consequences.
“Who will be responsible if the prime minister’s video is released on social media tomorrow,” he asked. He claimed that the video recording was being used to add undue pressure on witnesses. “What is the need for it when it cannot be used as evidence,” he asked. “I am discussing the psychological aspects of video recording,” he said, adding that the witness is engulfed in fear during video recordings.
Justice Ejaz remarked that video recording was done for maintaining accurate transcripts. He said that the video recording does not change the legal value of the statement. “It is only used to determine the correct context of the statement,” he said, maintaining that the rights of witnesses remain unaffected.
To this, Khawaja Haris said that the correct statements had been recorded even before the introduction of video technology. “We are not living in 1889,” Justice Afzal responded, adding that the use of technology was no big deal. Haris argued that the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Article 161 allows for verbal investigation which can be written whenever required.
He said that a record of the written statement can be kept separately. Rejecting these arguments, Justice Ejaz Afzal said that a statement recorded under the Article 161 was not admissible as evidence and was only used when there were two contradicting statements.
The Article 161 of the CrpC, pertaining to the examination of witnesses by police, states that the officer may write any statements made to him during the course of a probe and in doing so, will make a separate record of the statements of each person whose statements are recorded.
Haris pointed out that the JIT had conceded that a team member had leaked the photo which meant that they had no control over the CCTV cameras. During an earlier hearing, the JIT had rejected all allegations against the photo leak, but also told the court that punitive action has been taken against one individual suspected of involvement in the incident.
“How can the JIT be the judge of its own actions,” he questioned, referring to the JIT’s action against its team member. The attorney general seconded Haris’s point of view, saying that the court could not create space for new rules in existing laws on its own. Continuing his arguments, Haris stated that the JIT was bound by a criminal code, the NAB Ordinance 1999 and the FIA Act 1975 under the court’s authority.
Justice Azmat observed that the recordings of the proceedings would help the petitioner more than it could hurt him. He asked Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf Ali if he had read the JIT’s report submitted in the court on Monday. The attorney general replied that he had not read it so far. The bench directed the attorney general to examine the JIT report and submit his response on Thursday (today).
After listening to the arguments, the court reserved the judgment over the issue pertaining to the leaking of Hussain’s picture and video recording of the proceedings of the investigation team and adjourned the hearing of the case till Thursday (today).
