On Wednesday, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) halted the special parliamentary committee’s proceedings against former chief justice Saqib Nisar’s son, Najam Saqib.
The IHC called on the government to identify the entities responsible for recording audio conversations.
Justice Babar Sattar, presiding over the case, issued these directives while reviewing a petition by Najam Saqib. The petition was against a special committee National Assembly Speaker Raja Pervaiz Ashraf set up to investigate alleged audio clips featuring Najam’s voice.
In addition, Justice Sattar suspended the committee’s summons for Najam and overruled the Registrar’s Office’s objections to his petition. The court also served notices to the federal government, seeking clarification about the source of the audio recordings by June 19.
Questioning the authority of the special committee, Justice Sattar inquired, “Who is in charge of recording these audios?”
Latif Khosa, the petitioner’s counsel, indicated that the rules applying to the general committee should also apply to the special committee. Responding to this, the judge decided to involve the relevant ministry in the case.
Khosa stressed that the assembly and the speaker had no jurisdiction to probe private matters, which the petition contested. He affirmed that the petition did not challenge the ongoing case in the Supreme Court.
The plea filed by Najam sought the suspension of the committee’s proceedings and protection against any punitive measures. Najam argued that the alleged audio recordings violated his privacy and constituted unlawful surveillance. He asked the court to rule that recording a private individual’s conversation breached fundamental human rights.
The petition also contested the legality of the committee established by the NA speaker to examine the audio. In addition, it labeled the summons issued by the committee secretary for Najam, his father, and two others to appear in person as unlawful, asserting they were issued without any committee meeting.
Howeregistrar’sC registrar’s office objected to the petition, stating that the matter was already pending with the Supreme Court. It also noted that a sincouldn’ttion couldn’t contain two different pleas, as Najam chcommittee’se committee’s notification and requested the court to declare audio recording illegal.
