LAHORE: A Lahore High Court full bench adjourned the hearing of a petition seeking treason proceedings against two former prime ministers — Nawaz Sharif and Shahid Khaqan Abbasi — and Cyril Almeida, a Dawn staffer, as counsel for the petitioner remained absent for the second consecutive hearing.

As soon as the bench, headed by Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, resumed the hearing, an application for adjournment was filed on behalf of the petitioner’s counsel, saying that his presence was needed for a hearing at the Supreme Court.

The counsel was supposed to open his arguments on the maintainability of the petition as directed by the bench during two previous hearings.

Meanwhile, the bench allowed Mr Almeida to go abroad before the next hearing. Advocate Ahmad Rauf filed an application before the bench and pleaded that his client wanted to go abroad.The bench accepted the application and allowed Mr Almeida to go abroad.

Advocate Naseer Ahmad Bhutta filed an application on behalf of Nawaz Sharif seeking permanent exemption from personal appearance in the proceedings. The bench adjourned further hearing till Dec 11. In this case, all the three respondents have already submitted their written replies denying the allegations against them.

The petitioner said that a meeting of the National Security Council was held to discuss a “misleading” statement by Mr Sharif. After the meeting, she added, then prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi met Mr Sharif only to convey to him the concerns of the military leadership and minutes of the meeting. She contended Mr Abbasi’s action was a violation of his oath as he was bound not to allow his personal interest to influence his official conduct. She pleaded that Nawaz Sharif be tried for treason under Article 6 of the constitution as well as the Pakistan Penal Code.

Dawn

Related Story 

KARACHI: The Amnesty International and Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF) have expressed concern over the issuance of arrest warrants for journalist Cyril Almeida.

In a press release issued on Thursday, the Amnesty called upon the authorities in Pakistan to ensure that the criminal justice system is not used to harass or intimidate journalists.

Mr Almeida, an assistant editor at Dawn, has been summoned by the Lahore High Court over an interview he conducted of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. Mr Sharif is facing charges of treason for alleging in the interview that Pakistan-based militants had carried out the 2008 attacks in Mumbai.

“Cyril Almeida has simply been doing his job as a journalist. He conducted an interview with a former prime minister and reported what he was told. While the Lahore High Court is entitled to demand his appearance, the authorities must be careful not to use the criminal justice system to harass or intimidate journalists. “Journalism is not a crime and journalists doing their work should not be treated as criminals,” said Omar Waraich, an Amnesty office-bearer for South Asia.

According to the LHC, it issued the warrants as Mr Almeida did not appear before it during hearings in the treason case against Nawaz Sharif despite serving of three notices.

Staffers at Dawn’s Islamabad bureau, however, say that the first two notices were never delivered and the third arrived only last week.

Mr Almeida and Dawn have both said they are willing to cooperate with the courts.

“The new government of Prime Minister Imran Khan has made a number of very positive pledges when it comes to human rights. We expect his government will also commit to the protection of freedom of expression, and ensure a safe and enabling environment for journalists and other human rights defenders so that they can do their work freely and without fear of reprisals,” said Mr Waraich, the Amnesty office-bearer.

In its statement RSF called upon the Lahore High Court to rescind the warrants for Mr Almeida. “It is absolutely unacceptable that Cyril Almeida should be accused of treason simply for interviewing a politician,” said Daniel Bastard, the head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk. “We call on the court to immediately withdraw this arrest warrant, which bears all the hallmarks of an ignominious act of harassment.”

Mr Bastard added: “Crude procedural abuses are clearly being used to intimidate this journalist in order to deter him from doing his job. And behind him, it is Dawn’s editorial freedom that the establishment is targeting.”

Dawn

As the proceedings commenced, Advocate Azhar Siddique argued that the ban on helicam by Pemra authorities is against the Article 19 and 19-A of the Constitution. He said the helicams are being used because of the safety of the journalists. The petitioner said right to information has been enshrined by the Constitution which cannot be taken away from them. He prayed the court to set aside the ban on helicam imposed by Pemra. After hearing the arguments of the petitioner, Justice Ijaz-ul-Haq of the LHC issued notice to Pemra to submit reply. The court will resume hearing on September 11.

The News

As the hearing started, Pemra counsel Zia Shahid Waseer submitted a report in the court and stated that all cable operators have restored Geo News transmission.Counsel for WorldCall also informed the court that they have also restored Geo News transmission. However, Geo News’s counsel Behzad pointed out that the Supreme Court had ruled that no cable operator could block the transmission of a channel as it would be violation of Article 19 of the Constitution and fundamental right of millions of viewers would also be infringed.

The counsel further said that the apex court had also ruled that if Pemra failed to discharge its obligation, criminal proceedings under the charges of breach of trust could be initiated against it. He said Pemra notices to cable operators were vague and unclear. He saidcable operators, including WorldCall, had not restored Geo News transmission so far.

The counsel said he would submit a report on next date of hearing, and, if it was found authenticated one, he would submit a contempt of court petition against the head of WorldCall.

He pointed out that head of Arbitration Committee Javed Jabbar, constituted on SC order, had stated that national level news channel’s transmission should be telecast on preferential slots.Former attorney general Iftikhar Shahid also submitted power of attorney on behalf of Geo News Lahore Bureau Chief Khawar Naeem Hashmi who has submitted an application to become a necessary party in the case.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan adjourned hearing till September 4 due to court summer vacations and directed Pemra to ensure implementation of SC order regarding restoration of Geo News transmission to its original slot.

The News

The court further said it was yet to be seen what course could be adopted if the cable operators did not broadcast transmission of a channel on a specific slot.Justice Ijazul Ahsan was hearing a petition of the Independent Media Corporation against not restoring the Geo News transmission on the specific slot in line with the Supreme Court’s orders.

Geo News Lahore Bureau chief Khawar Naeem Hashmi, Electronic Media Reporters Association President Asim Naseer, Electronic News Camera Association President Waheed Butt, Jang Workers Union President Rukhsana Nazli, Vice-President Muhammad Arshad, General Secretary Waseem Babar, civil society representative Abdullah Malik, PPP leader Iftikhar Shahid, LHC Bar Association Finance Secretary candidate Amina Ajmal and a large number of senior journalists were present in the courtroom.

At the outset, Pemra informed the court that show-cause notices had been issued to cable operators who did not available on cable network.Geo News counsels Behzad Haider and Jam Asif argued that the transmission had not been completely restored and it was totally closed in many areas. They pointed out that the cable operators had not restored Geo News transmission on its slot as it was on April 19.

At this, the Pemra counsel said Geo News had been restored but the bone of contention between cable operators and Geo News was its restoration on the previous slot. He suggested that the cable operators and Geo News could strike a deal on the issue.

The Geo News counsel contended that the Geo News transmission had not been brought back in compliance with the apex court’s order which was tantamount to an offence. “Now, PEMRA has come up with a plea that Geo’s transmission has been restored after issuance of show-cause notices to cable operators. The Have cable operators become saint?” the counsel questioned.

He said the Pemra had not taken action against the cable operators for violating the court orders. He requested the court to direct the cable operators to restore Geo News to its previous slot.The court, however, said it was a legal issue that would have to be determined.

During the hearing, Azam Nazir Tarar appeared on behalf of Pakistan Broadcasters Association and requested the court that the association wanted to become a party in the case. He said the association had 127 members and they might be affected by restoration of Geo News to its previous slot. The Geo News counsel opposed it; the court, however, adjourned the hearing till July 25.

The News

Justice Ijazul Ahsan made these remarks while hearing a petition of the Independent Media Corporation against the closure of Geo News in violation of the SC order. He said the Supreme Court’s order was final and under the Constitution, every individual and institution was bound to adhere to it. The cable operators had no right to block or encrypt any channel. No one could deviate from the apex court’s order and if such a situation cropped up, the court would intervene to correct the situation, he said.

Geo News Lahore Bureau Chief Khawar Naeem Hashmi, Lahore Press Club Secretary Shahbaz Mian, Jang Workers Union President Rukhsana Nazli, Vice President Muhammad Arshad, General Secretary Wasim Babar and a large number of journalists were present in the courtroom.

The Jang Workers Union also moved an application to become a party in the case. However, the judge said the Jang Group had approached the court through a petition and its outcome would benefit its workers as well.

Geo News counsel Behzad Haider and Jam Asif Mehmood told the court that despite the SC order, the cable operators had not restored the Geo News to its old number. They said the cable operators were violating the apex court order and Pakistan Electronic Media Regularity Authority (Pemra) rules, but the authority had taken no action against them. They pointed out that the Geo News was running its transmission but the cable operators were not telecasting it. They said due to the non-airing of the channel on the cable network, it was getting no advertisement. If the Geo News was not restored on the cable network, it was likely that it would be bankrupt that would lead to the expulsion of thousands of its workers.

The counsel said the Sindh High Court had given a precise order to restore the Geo News to its old number and action should be taken against the cable operators declined to abide by the order. However, the Pemra was reluctant to take any action against them.

The court summoned the deputy attorney general on a short notice. DAG Riaz Qadeer appeared before the court and told it that the Pemra had initiated legal action against the cable operators who were not restoring the Geo News to its old number. He said show cause notices had been issued to the violators and they had been summoned on July 11. He requested the court to wait for the outcome of the Pemra meeting with the cable operators.

The Geo counsel said their grievance would not be addressed till the complete restoration of the Geo News transmission to its old number. They said the Pemra had ordered the closure of the Geo News and it was implemented at once. Now the order had been passed for its restoration and the same should also be enforced in letter and spirit with immediate effect.

A cable operators counsel told the court that 117 channels were running their transmission while the cable operators had a capacity to air only 96 channels including the PTV. In such a situation, how could it be determined that a specific channel should be run at a specific number?

At this, the court remarked that the Geo News should be restored to the number at which it was being run on April 19. Under the law, the cable operators had no authority whatsoever to broadcast a channel or block it whimsically. The court would also look into the SC order to determine whether the SC had made it imperative on the cable operators to run a specific channel at a specific number. Had the SC given the cable operators the power to block a channel? The court said and added it would also look into terms and conditions of licenses issued to the cable operators.

The DAG said it would become obvious on July 11 in a meeting with the cable operators whether they had violated the SC order and what punishment be awarded to them in case they were found guilty.

The Geo News counsel again said the Pemra should work strictly in accordance with the law without any fear or favour. The court, however, said let the Pemra hold the meeting with the cable operators and it might result in favour of the Geo News.

Khawar told the court the Geo News was not being seen in 50 per cent areas of Punjab and 80 per cent of Sindh, but the Pemra was sitting idle instead of initiating legal action against the violators. He said his organisation had lost confidence in the Pemra and expected no justice from it. He said the information minister announced that the Geo News had been restored but the ground realty was altogether different as the Pemra took no legal action against the cable operators violating the minister’s order. It was confusing that under whose authority the Pemra was working, he said.

He said workers were worried as they would face ouster and non-payment of salaries as the situation was deteriorating rapidly. The organisation could be shut down if the situation persisted too long. He said the right of freedom of speech was being stifled. He requested the court to take notice of the situation and take steps to safeguard the Geo News from closure. He said the Jang Group had no other forum, expect judiciary, to redress its grievance.

Civil Society representative Abdullah Malik said the Geo News issue was related to human rights as thousands of people were employed in the organisation and its closure would deprive them of their livelihood.

Senior Journalist Amin Hafeez said the court better knew about the modus operandi of the establishment and it should take action against it.The court said it would exercise its judicial power in case of injustice. The judge asked the petitioner to wait till the Pemra decision on July 11.The court adjourned the hearing till July 17 and sought the record of the July 11 meeting.

The News

The court directed the DAG to get a specific answer from Pemra as to what action it took after receiving complaints.Eight complaints were filed by IMC against eight cable operators of Lahore, Multan, Gujranwala, Rahim Yar Khan, and Bahawalpur.

Shehzad Haider and Jam Asif Advocates appeared on behalf of IMC. They submitted that Geo TV had undergone the punishment of suspension and fine after which the Pemra ordered the cable operators on 26 June to restore Geo transmission to the old position; however, neither the cable operators complied with the order nor did the authority take any action.They urged the court to take notice of the matter and order Pemra to get its June 26 order implemented.

The News

Justice Ijazul Ahsan ruled this while issuing a detailed judgment on a petition moved by Mubashar Lucman seeking initiation of high treason proceedings against the owners of the Jang and Geo group and cancellation of the declaration of Daily Jang and The News and the licence of Geo TV.

The federation of Pakistan is the main respondent in the petition. The judge was of the view that nothing has been placed on record nor has anything been alleged that may show any direct or indirect nexus or connection between respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and any act on their part which may have effect of abrogating or subverting or suspending or holding in abeyance the Constitution of Pakistan or any part thereof. Also, how could Mubashir Lucman who is associated with a rival media group, can claim that he filed a petition again Jang and Geo in public interest?

Further it has neither been alleged nor argued that the said respondents have attempted or conspired to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance the constitution or any part thereof by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means.

In addition, there is nothing on record to show that the said respondents have aided or abetted or collaborated in one or more of the afore-noted acts.The judge said the offence of high treason is a serious offence considering that on conviction, a person is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There needs to be substantial material and evidence available on the record that may furnish prima-facie basis for the federal government to come to the conclusion that a person is liable to be tried under the said offence. The petitioner has not placed any such material showing commission or attempted commission of the offence on record except a book authored by him. “This, in my [judge] humble opinion, does not constitute adequate or sufficient material that may furnish any basis to grant the relief sought.

Text of judgment:

1. The petitioner is a known anchor person of a news group in Pakistan, He has filed this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and has appeared in person to argue the matter. He has pointed out that in a recent incident at Karachi, a prominent anchor person working with a news group owned by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 survived a murder attempt. He maintains that despite the fact that a First Information Report (“FIR”) has not so far been lodged, a scandalous campaign has been launched by the news group owned by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 on the basis of false, frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations against the Inter Services Intelligence Agency (“ISI”). He submits that this vilification campaign is violative of Section 20 of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002 (“PEMRA Ordinance”) and the rules framed there-under. It is also gross abuse of the right of freedom of speech enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

2. The petitioner submits that ISI is a credible state institution. It has a pivotal role in countering threats against national security. The campaign initiated by the media group owned by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 could defile its reputation and undermine the confidence of the general public in the said institution. These actions, according to the petitioner, constitute high treason.

3. The Petitioner alleges that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are directly responsible for the illegal actions on the part of their media group and are liable to be tried and punished for committing the offence of high treason.

4. He prays that the Federal Government may be directed to initiate a case for high treason against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 under Article 6 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Treason (Punishment) Act 1973 and the relevant provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code. A further direction is sought to cancel the license of respondent No.4, which runs television channels under the name and style of “Geo News” and “Geo Tez”. A prayer for cancellation of declaration issued in favour of respondent No.2 to publish the daily newspapers “Jang” and “The News” has also been made.

5. I have heard the petitioner at length and considered the arguments advanced by him.

6. The main focus of the petitioner’s arguments is that respondent No.1 should be directed to initiate a case against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 for high treason in terms of Article 6 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The questions requiring determination by this Court are: – a. Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court can, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, direct the Federal Government to initiate a case under Article 6 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. b. Whether this petition is maintainable in its present form and the relief sought can be granted.

7. On hearing the petitioner and examining the relevant provisions of law, the answer to the afore-noted questions has to be in the negative for the following reasons: – a. The offence of high treason is a special offence. It is a constitutional offence defined by our Constitution. Article 6 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 defines High Treason as follows: –

6. High treason.- [(1) Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.] (2) Any person aiding or abetting [or collaborating] the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

[(2A) An act of high treason mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) shall not be validated by any Court including the Supreme Court and a High Court.]

The contents of this petition and arguments of the petitioner do not show that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 fall within the definition of the “Person” visualized in Article 6. Nothing has been placed on record nor has anything been alleged that may show any direct or indirect nexus or connection between respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and any act on their part which may have effect of abrogating or subverting or suspending or holding in abeyance the Constitution of Pakistan or any part thereof. Further it has neither been alleged nor argued that the said respondents have attempted or conspired to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance the constitution or any part thereof by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means. In addition, there is nothing on record to show that the said respondents have aided or abetted or collaborated in one or more of the afore-noted acts.

b. The offence of high treason is a serious offence considering that on conviction, a person is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There needs to be substantial material and evidence available on the record that may furnish prima-facie basis for the Federal Government to come to the conclusion that a person is liable to be tried under the said offence. The petitioner has not placed any such material showing commission or attempted commission of the offence on record except a book authored by him. This, in my humble opinion, does not constitute adequate or sufficient material that may furnish any basis to grant the relief sought.

c. Article 6 (3) of the constitution provides that “Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason”. In exercise of powers under the said article, the High Treason (Punishment) Act 1973 was enacted on 29.09.1973. It provides that a person who is guilty (a) of having committed an act of abrogation or subversion of a Constitution enforced in Pakistan at any time since 23.03.1956; or (b) of high treason as defined in Article 6 of the constitution, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

However, in order to initiate proceedings for conviction of offence of high treason, Section 3 of the act provides as follows: –

3. Procedure. – No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a compliant in writing made by a person authorized by the Federal Government in this behalf.

I have specifically asked the petitioner if he has any authorization from the Federal Government to file a compliant relating to commission of the offence of High Treason by respondent Nos. 2 & 3. He has candidly conceded that such authorization has neither been sought by nor given to the petitioner. He has also not approached the Federal Government with the requisite evidence or material to initiate such complaint in accordance with law and the constitution.

d. During the course of arguments, the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 as well as the news channels which are owned and run by their company have unleashed a storm of false, frivolous and baseless allegations against ISI by alleging that the said agency is involved in the assassination attempt on Mr. Hamid Mir’s life. He submits that such reckless and baseless allegations could defile the reputation of the agency and undermine the confidence of the general public in the institution. In the first place, even if the argument of the petitioner was to be taken on its face value, the said alleged actions do not prima facie fall within the definition of high treason narrated above. Further it appears that ISI/Federal Government has already initiated proceedings in this regard by filing a complaint with the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) through the Ministry of Defence and has sought action against the respondent under the PEMRA Ordinance and rules and regulations framed there under. There is no denial of the fact that PEMRA being the sole regulatory and licensing authority in these matters has the requisite powers and the exclusive jurisdiction to address this issue in accordance with law. The aggrieved party has approached the competent forum which has taken cognizance of the matter. I have asked the petitioner how he is an aggrieved party in this matter. Further being associated with a rival media group, how he can claim to have brought this petition in public interest. He has not responded with a cogent and legally sustainable answer. In these circumstances, I find that the matter is already before the competent forum having been bought before it by an aggrieved party.

Prima facie, the petitioner is neither an aggrieved party in this matter nor is this Court the correct forum to agitate these issues. As such this petition is not maintainable.

e. The petitioner has also argued that the vilification campaign has commenced even before an FIR was lodged and that the matter is not being properly investigated. In this regard suffice it to say that the investigative machinery has already been set into motion. Further, the Federal Government has constituted a commission comprising 03 Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to enquire into the matter. In these circumstances, the apprehensions of the petitioner are obviously misplaced and premature. Further if the victim of the offence or his family is dissatisfied with the manner in which investigation is being conducted, judicial remedies under the criminal statutes are available under the law, which can be availed by the concerned parties, should the need arise.

f. The petitioner has also argued that the license of Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. (respondent No.5) should be cancelled on the basis of the allegations made in this petition. As discussed above, if at all the petitioner has any grievance relating to violation of terms of license or the provisions of the PEMRA Ordinance, the correct forum for the petitioner is to approach PEMRA through an appropriate application for action in accordance with law. This Court in exercise of extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction does not ordinarily interfere in matters in which adequate and efficacious alternate remedies are available. Reference in this regard may usefully be made to Rai Ashraf Vs. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti (PLD 2010 SC 691).

g. The petitioner has not been able to indicate any ground on the basis of which it can be inferred that the alternate remedies are either not efficacious or inadequate. Further the allegations made in the petition are generalized, vague and without any supporting evidence. The contents of the petition show that the allegations require a factual inquiry which would necessitate recording of evidence. It is settled law that this Court in exercise of extra ordinary Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution does not ordinarily undertake the said exercise. As such even on this score, this petition is not maintainable. In coming to this conclusion, I am fortified by Fida Hussain and another Vs. Mst. Saiqa and others (2011 SCMR 1990), Shah Wali and others Vs. Ferouddin & others (2011 SCMR 1023), Amir Jamal and others Vs. Malik Zahoor ul Haq & others (2005 PLC 366) and Pervaiz Alam Vs. Pakistan Dairy Products (Pvt) Ltd. Karachi & 2 others (2000 SCMR 718).

h. As far as cancellation of declaration allegedly issued in favour of respondent No.2 to publish the Daily “Jang” and “The News” are concerned, there is a specific procedure prescribed in the News Agencies and Book Registration Ordinance 2002 (“Ordinance 2002”) for issuance of declaration and cancellation of the same. Admittedly the petitioner has not approached the competent authority/ forum provided by law for cancellation of the declaration in question. Where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone and in no other manner. Reliance in this regard can usefully be placed on Khalil ur Rehman etc. Vs. Dr. Manzoor Ahmed etc. (PLD 2011 SC 512), Humayun Sarfraz Khan Vs. Noor Muhammad (2007 SCMR 307) and Ata Muhammad Qureshi Vs. The Settlement Commissioner Lahore Division Lahore (PLD 1971 SC 61).

In addition, not an iota of evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the allegation that respondent No. 2 has indulged in any act or omission that may furnish basis for cancellation of the declaration in question. Further the remedies available under Ordinance 2002 have admittedly not been availed. No reason is forthcoming for failure on the part of the petitioner to do so. Confronted with this situation, the petitioner has not pressed this prayer. His main emphasis has been to seek a direction to respondent No.1 to initiate a case for treason against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 under Article 6 of the Constitution read with the High Treason (Punishment) Act 1973. The reasons for refusal of this Court to grant the relief sought have been enumerated in detail in the foregoing paragraphs.

8. For reasons recorded above, I find that this petition is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed in limini.

The News

Addressing a press conference, bar president Shafqat Mahmood Chohan, vice president Amir Jalil Siddiqui, secretary Mian Ahmad and finance secretary Mian Iqbal said the Jang group and Geo have played a historic role in stability of state institutions, an independent judiciary and restoration of democracy.

They said lawyers will stand by the journalists who speak and write the truth fearlessly and serve the nation. They said media men suffered punishments, brutalities along with lawyers for the independence of the judiciary. They demanded early arrest of attackers of Hamid Mir and punishment.

On the occasion, Amir Jalil said Hamid Mir studied along with him at the university. Hamid Mir had never compromised on his principles. Secretary Mian Chachar said Hamid Mir was dauntless in speaking the truth, and the attack on him was a show of cowardice.

He said lawyers were with journalists and while a judicial commission had been established, any view can be expressed only after a report was presented by the commission. Mian Iqbal said the attack on Hamid Mir was an attack on the freedom of the press. They demanded that Pervez Musharraf should be sentenced after his trial. They pledged to resist unendingly if any despot tried to take such a step. He said if any tilt was shown in the Musharraf case, court will also be blamed for it.

The News

Given the exponential relevance of the internet in the dissemination of information over the past two decades, the need for internet freedom is justifiably being described as a right of freedom to information.

Low literacy rates, economic disparities and poor infrastructure are commonly blamed for expansion of the internet in developing countries like Pakistan. However, there are other factors behind unhindered internet usage within our country, which also merit further attention.

The unnecessary regulation of internet usage is one evident problem. Pakistan was ranked among the bottom 10 countries in the Freedom on the Net report 2013, which measured the level of internet and digital media freedom in 60 countries. A YouTube ban of over 18 months is an evident example of such restrictions. A judge sitting on a Lahore High Court (LHC) division bench hearing a petition against the YouTube ban recently asked the minister of state for information technology and telecommunication to appear in the court. The judiciary has also rightly questioned why Pakistan is the only Muslim country in the world to have banned YouTube because of a sacrilegious film. While pressure is mounting with the recent judicial activism and the Senate standing committee recommendation to lift the YouTube ban, the populace itself does not seem very keen on demanding internet freedom.

While support is strong across emerging and developing countries for an internet without government censorship, Pakistan recorded the lowest percentage of people expressing opposition to censorship across 24 countries, according to a survey released this past week by the Pew Research Center.

The Pew survey findings have revealed that support for internet freedom is strong in nations with high rates of internet penetration such as Chile and Argentina, where roughly two-thirds of the population is online. It is less common in nations with lower penetration rates like Indonesia and Uganda. Other nations like Venezuela and Egypt have higher levels of support for internet freedom despite lower levels of online penetration. Conversely, support for internet freedom is lower than expected in Russia and Pakistan, given the percentage of people who use the internet.

In Pakistan, while 22 per cent of the people polled expressed opposition to censorship, a significant majority (62 per cent) gave no response, or remained undecided. A majority of younger people (in the 18-29 age bracket) supported unrestricted internet usage in every country, except in Pakistan.

Internet usage in Pakistan is estimated to vary between 10 to 20 per cent, according to different sources. There are probably stark disparities on the basis of urban and rural, socio-economic and gender divides, concerning which there is not adequately reliable data available. The need for overcoming “the digital divide” remains vital to ensure that the benefits of internet usage do not remain confined to those who are already relatively empowered.

Nonetheless, the internet offers unprecedented resources for enhancing access to information and knowledge and it is creating previously unavailable opportunities for expression and participation.
Given this potential, the existing public apathy towards the need for greater internet freedom in our country is troubling, given that public awareness and demand for unhindered access to internet remains a precondition to overcome authoritarian regulations as well as ensuring that a greater proportion of our population can benefit from this technological opportunity.

Express Tribune