- Office of AGP and AAG acts as ‘bridge’ to facilitate communication, Awan says in a rare media briefing
ISLAMABAD: In what is being described as a “rare press talk,” Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan on Tuesday refuted allegations that the government or any other state institution interfering in judicial affairs, asserting the office of the AGP and the AAG acts as a “bridge” to facilitate communication.
The developments comes shortly after the IHC began hearing two contempt pleas pertaining to the character assassination of IHC’s Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani on social media and the leaking of Justice Babar Sattar’s personal details.
AGP Awan maintained that it is necessary to issue clarification as the matter of the IHC judges’ letter was being presented in a manner that implies a growing conflict between the executive and the judiciary.
“It was requested to hear surveillance-related matters in-camera, to ensure the matter does not go into the public domain to protect the capabilities of our security and intelligence agencies,” the AGP maintained, adding that this was communicated to the relevant quarters.
“Neither the government or any state institution can meddle in the affairs of the judiciary and I strongly deny any such impression.”
“According to my information, no officer of any security establishment has contacted or can contact [any member of the judiciary]. And the contact that was made, was done through the AGP’s office to ensure sensitive information was not made public.”
Earlier in March, six judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) reached out to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) seeking clarity on the alleged intrusion of executive members, including intelligence operatives, in the judicial matters.
Six judges of the IHC—Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz—penned a letter to the SJC led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, expressing concerns about the “interference” of intelligence agencies in the affairs of the courts.
“We, therefore, request that a judicial convention be called to consider the matter of interference of intelligence operatives with judicial functions and/or intimidation of judges in a manner that undermines the independence of the judiciary.”
In their letter, the judges emphasised the necessity of investigating whether there exists an ongoing policy within the executive branch aimed at interfering with judicial affairs.
