In a recent Supreme Court session, Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa openly criticized the inadequacies of a report submitted by the commission investigating the 2017 Faizabad sit-in orchestrated by Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP). The critique unfolded during a review of several petitions challenging the Supreme Court’s 2019 judgment regarding the same incident.
Presided over by Justice Isa along with Justices Irfan Saadat Khan and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, the session was conducted publicly, streamed live on the Supreme Court’s website and YouTube channel. The 2019 judgment, authored by Justice Isa before his tenure as Chief Justice, had directed significant governmental and military entities to ensure accountability for any personnel violating their oath, alongside monitoring and prosecuting individuals promoting extremism.
The judgment had also highlighted the role of various government departments in exacerbating public inconvenience during the sit-in, which severely disrupted life in Islamabad and Rawalpindi over a span of 20 days.
Although many initial petitioners, including notable government and political entities, later withdrew their appeals, this prompted Justice Isa to question the reluctance in confronting truth. The session further delved into discussions on the lack of effective implementation of the 2019 judgment, particularly after the arrest of PTI chief Imran Khan in May, which saw a resurgence in violence.
Discontent Over the Commission’s Findings
The report from the specially formed commission, led by retired IG Syed Akhtar Ali Shah, failed to meet the expectations set by the Terms of Reference (ToRs). Justice Isa expressed dismay over the report’s failure to directly assign responsibility for the mishandling of the sit-in. The discussion also included critiques of intelligence agencies’ roles and their denials about monitoring terror financing, which was highlighted during the hearing.
Justice Isa’s frustration was evident as he noted the contradictions in the report, particularly regarding statements made by former intelligence figures, and the overall lack of new insights or accountability from the commission. The discussion pointed out the superficial nature of the report, which seemed to avoid delving deeply into the issues or engaging with TLP representatives who were directly involved in the sit-in.
Reflections on Institutional Responsibilities
The session also touched upon broader implications of the commission’s shortcomings, including potential impacts on national security and public trust in government institutions. The judges stressed the importance of peaceful protest as a democratic right, contrasting it sharply with the destructive actions seen during the sit-in.
As the hearing concluded, the court’s dissatisfaction was clear, pointing to a need for a more thorough and proactive approach in addressing such significant national issues. The judiciary underscored the importance of adhering to constitutional duties by all branches of government and security agencies to prevent such crises in the future.
Ongoing Legal Challenges
The review petitions, including those from the Ministry of Defence and the Intelligence Bureau, remain a contentious part of the ongoing legal discourse surrounding the 2017 Faizabad sit-in. These petitions challenge the portrayal of security agencies’ involvement in political activities as depicted in the 2019 SC judgment.
As Post Affair continues to follow this story, the implications of these legal proceedings and their outcomes will provide deeper insights into the functioning of justice and governance in Pakistan.
