There is little doubt that the media in Pakistan is besieged today as it is getting battered by different elements that range from the authorities to the economy.

Supreme Court Justice Faez Isa is not known to mince his words on transgressions of the rule of law and the Constitution. He remarked during a hearing on Thursday that there appeared to be a move to silence the media.

He lamented that “we are now living in a controlled media state” where all points of view, other than the one that powerful elements of the power structure are comfortable with, were not welcomed.

The judge asked if the country’s future was being determined by parliament or, what he called, insidious forces. Justice Faez Isa’s remarks came during the hearing of a suo motu case in the Supreme Court on the Faizabad dharna during the final days of the last government.

The two-member bench, headed by Justice Mushir Alam, expressed shock and dismay that TV news channels were taken off air on someone’s orders by cable operators, and took to task the regulator Pemra for not lifting a finger to ensure the free distribution of news channels on cable networks.

The bench was also displeased by the role of the ISI and demanded that the court be briefed about the exact mandate and role of the all-powerful security service. The court came down hard on the attorney general of Pakistan for not appearing before the court in this matter of import, despite a clear commitment.Many of us know that while the court is a robust backer of freedoms, there are powerful forces determined to make Pakistan a ‘uni-narrative’ state.

All who believe in the freedom of the media would take heart from the remarks of the honourable court. Still, many of us would also know that while the court will be a robust backer of freedoms, there are very powerful forces determined to make Pakistan a ‘uni-narrative’ state.

It is not a very well-kept secret how the media was beaten into submission in the run-up to the elections by agencies, and told in no uncertain terms what was acceptable and what was not. Notwithstanding the odd case of heroic defiance, much of the media content reflected the self-censorship that was enforced on the fourth estate.

Of course, the PTI strategy to blame the slowdown of the economy mostly on the policies of its predecessors — and not even a bit on its own scare-mongering tactics — may have been designed to demonise the PML-N, but it began to cut both ways.

As concerns mounted about the state of the economy, it has also bitten the media, with commercial advertisers holding back their ad spends. This, coupled with the present setup’s refusal to honour the payment for ads the last government placed in the media but did not pay for, has exacerbated the crisis.

Even then, it would be outright dishonest to say that cutbacks and job losses in the media are due to a legitimate market-based financial crunch alone. Many of the senior figures who have lost their jobs/ programmes, for example in TV channels, have often expressed their support for civilian supremacy.

There is no denying that there is a legitimate financial squeeze too, but in many of the decisions it seems more factors are at play than what Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry chooses solely to blame on the ‘financial crunch’.

It does not take rocket science to ascertain the actual situation. Look at the legislative record of the PTI, and the party’s performance in its first 100 days in power, and you will see very few draft laws and regulations presented to parliament or even placed in the public domain for discussion.

But one of the first drafts prepared (almost as if it was handed over to the PTI on assuming office) and floated with the pledge of taking all stakeholders on board was the draft law to club together all media regulatory bodies into one.

The move received a negative reaction from the stakeholders in media, especially working journalists and editors who have viewed it as an insidious attempt to shackle the media via stealth in the shape of regulatory reform.

More recent statements by the information minister, who is seen as close to both the prime minister and other powerful state institutions, have been about also tightening the screws on social media which, after large sections of the traditional media were muzzled, had become a source of information for the public.

As a social media user, I would be the last person to say that the platforms do not lay themselves open to exploitation by purveyors of manufactured news and even propaganda, but this is definitely not to say that such people have an overwhelming presence on it. Far from it.

Even where there is such content, there are ways and means to rubbish it and spell out what the facts are. But it is clear that such use does not scare the authorities.

What unnerves them, it appears, is the use of social media — as, for instance, in the aftermath of Naqibullah Mehsud’s extrajudicial murder and the initial botched investigation which created a rights movement largely via social media. Even then, why the fear? It is not as if justice has been meted out to the perpetrators seen as assets by the state.

At this stage, the PTI might be supporting the muzzling of the media to remain on the ‘same page’ with powerful state institutions, but if Prime Minister Imran Khan desires to drive meaningful change he will need more authority than, say, Shaukat Aziz had while in office. Here the media will prove a solid ally in the long run. One really hopes and wishes he has the vision to see that.

Dawn

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 

When journalists in this country portray certain politicians as the embodiment of corruption, they are not expecting to be hauled up by the Supreme Court. Yet that is exactly what happened in the aftermath of a political talk show hosted by Arshad Sharif, aired on ARY News on August 28, 2018.

In the show, Sharif, while discussing proceedings pending before the Supreme Court hinted that former president and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Co-Chairman Asif Ali Zardari had not been entirely honest when furnishing details regarding his ownership of property. He then went on to discuss two, allegedly contradictory, affidavits filed by Zardari at different points in time. Not content with pointing out the ostensible factual inconsistency, he sought — and furnished — opinions on which of the two affidavits represented the truth. This led to suo motu case No 28 of 2018, in which a three-member bench of the Supreme Court laid out, and affirmed, standards to be followed when commenting upon sub judice matters.

In simple terms, ‘sub judice’ refers to a matter being under judicial consideration. At the heart of this latest Supreme Court case is the rather difficult exercise of striking a balance between freedom of expression and ensuring that reputations and actors involved in cases covered by the media are not prejudiced.

So how do you know if you are going too far in commenting upon sub judice matters? For starters, broadcasters have to abide by Electronic Media (Programmes and Advertisements) Code of Conduct, 2015. The next thing to be mindful of, as per the Supreme Court, is the balance to be struck between your right to express your opinion versus another person’s right to a fair trial as well as their right to be dealt with in accordance with law. Comments upon sub judice matters have not been banned but they will, as per the law laid down by the top court, have to be ‘objective’ — and not ‘subjective’. PEMRA’s licensees (i.e. television and radio channels) are now bound to ensure that no material capable of prejudicing judicial determinations, trials or ongoing investigation is aired.

To the optimist, the ruling is an important step in reminding the media of its responsibilities in a time of deep political division. There is no shortage of those who have suffered harm to reputation and dignity because of unforgiving attention from the media. To the cynic, there is unmistakable irony in an activist court chiding media houses for shaping perceptions through sound bites instead of focusing only on facts. Nuance requires borrowing from both perspectives.

At the risk of stating the obvious, media channels can make or break reputations if they decide to be with or against you. Sure, you can take them to court for defamation to clear your name but a lot of damage has usually occurred by then. There is great merit in ensuring that there are pre-agreed rules of the game that the media does not violate — especially in matters as emotive and divisive as high-profile court cases.

It is deeply frustrating to watch people who are not lawyers pretending to be legal experts and opining on pending cases, however, some of this is a necessary evil.

But who should lay down the rules? Should it be the state or would self-regulation by the media be a better model? In this instance, the top court has built on top of what the state had already prescribed through a Code of Conduct. For those who believe in restraint, the top court could have left the matter at calling for the implementation of the Code of Conduct. But it went further, much further. Should this be celebrated?

The answer depends on whether you trust the state — in each relevant context — to prescribe rules that would be fair and narrowly tailored without trying to suppress free expression or legitimate criticism. For now, you and I do not have much of a choice — there is a statutory Code of Conduct, additional directions from the top court and a Supreme Court ruling to support the implementation of this framework.

No one would argue that the media should be free to cause or fan prejudice in sub judicematters. A trial by media can be deeply traumatic and scarring — for individuals involved as well as the system. But the hard fact is that each instance of prejudice stems from a unique context, with its own facts. Arshad Sharif’s case is just one example; should the apex court have used this one case to impose a judicially crafted set of rules telling media houses what they can and cannot say? The cause of striking a balance between fair trial and free speech is not well served when general — instead of specific fact-based — balancing exercises are carried out.

The criteria defined by the court when it is talking in general terms, instead of in specific cases, will always be overbroad. This is just the nature of the exercise. Laying down a broad set of general rules always results in vague standards that have to be concretised in individual cases. Normally legislatures or the executive (through secondary legislation) lay down general rules; the courts stick to deciding specific cases. In matters relating to free speech, I am not keen to celebrate the judicial writing of general rules to control speech.

Of course, as a lawyer and citizen, it is deeply frustrating for me to watch people who are not lawyers pretending to be legal experts and opining on pending cases. Some of this, we should remind ourselves, is a necessary evil. Democracy, to quote Amartya Sen, is ‘government by discussion’. Not every opinion we disagree with is prejudicial to a case or an individual — and we must be cognisant of the dangers of using a straw-man to craft prohibitions broader than absolutely necessary. The line that we are trying to draw is thin so being circumspect and sceptical makes sense. Judges and lawyers are not easily prejudiced by the media; they often approach cases with their own, more silent, pre-conceptions or convictions. Of course, juries in trials and the public, in general, should not be hostage to the media — but those are calls to be made in individual cases.

Consider some of the problems that may arise as a result of the court’s broadly worded directions. What does it mean that a media channel cannot air ‘subjective’ comments on pending cases? Is it within or outside the bounds of the law to televise a debate between two constitutional law scholars arguing over what arguments are likely to weigh with judges in a sub judice and landmark case? Is discussing how individual judges read the Constitution an ‘objective’ (allowed) or ‘subjective’ (prohibited) comment? Is calling a judge a conservative or liberal an exercise in fact or opinion? There will likely be increasing uncertainty about this in the coming days. A possible downside is that people and media outlets will engage in self-censorship; this would be tragic.

There is a strong case to be made that Arshad Sharif crossed a line; he wanted to cast doubt upon the veracity of two documents that were to be judicially examined, and ruled upon, in a pending case. He apologised and undertook not to repeat his conduct. The matter could have ended there, but it did not. Has the apex court clarified the law and struck the appropriate balance? Or will this lead to more questions and uncertainty in the coming days?

The News

ISLAMABAD: Four years after the submission of a draft of “the journalists’ protection and welfare bill”, members of the Senate’s sub-committee on information, broadcasting and national heritage reached the conclusion on Monday that most of the proposals were irrelevant.

The bill was introduced by Prof Khurshid Ahmed and 21 other senators in Oct 2011 and referred to the standing committee by the House Business Advisory Committee in September this year.

Of the movers, 15 have retired after completing their six-year term as senator in 2012 and March this year.

Information Minister Pervaiz Rashid, Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, Leader of the House Raja Zafarul Haq and the sub-committee’s chief Mushahidullah Khan are also among the movers of the bill.

It suggests a number of steps to be taken by the government, such as providing special jackets and all allied facilities such as water, food and fuel to journalists during coverage, especially in emergency situations, in case of a national calamity, accident or natural disaster.

It proposes that journalists should be exempted from parking fee all over the country and get free medical treatment in government hospitals.

If a journalist feels threatened and needs protection, the SHO of the area shall provide the required security, the draft says.

“If any incident occurs in the limits of any police station and the SHO of the area is informed about the incident, the SHO shall be held responsible.”

It also suggests setting up a journalists’ social security fund and a national journalists’ council to recommend steps for their welfare.

“If a journalist loses life during performance of duty, or is injured, his/her family shall be compensated with at least Rs3 million in case of death, Rs1 million in case of major injury and Rs500,000 in case of minor injury.”

Moreover, a controversial clause of the draft law is that the Supreme Court may ask about the source of information in case of a matter of ‘national security’.

Senator Mushahidullah said he had studied the bill and discussed it with media persons, and reached the conclusion that a number of proposals were within the purview of media houses.

“However, through the bill, responsibilities of the media houses have been diverted towards the government. Moreover, it is impossible for the government to implement some of the recommendations,” he said.

He suggested that media owners and their representative bodies should be invited to finalise the proposals.

The President of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), Afzal Butt, said although some of the recommendations could be the responsibility of media houses, only parliament could ensure their implementation.

“Majority of journalists even don’t have appointment letters. Salary is not paid in time and media houses have become no-go areas for the implementing agencies. So parliament should intervene,” he said.

Mr Butt alleged that officials of the information ministry tried to favour media owners instead of workers.

“While most of the media houses were making efforts to get banned the ‘Bol Group’, we requested the information minister to notify the wage board because it was a good opportunity and the media houses were not in a position to react. The minister agreed and instructed an official to bring the file but the official said that file had been misplaced,” he said.

Senator Zafarul Haq said that since terrorism was at its peak in 2011, a decision had been taken to make a law for protection and welfare of journalists.

“We had observed that although wage board awards were announced, they were not implemented. When I was information minister, I announced that advertisements would not be issued to those media house which did not have regular employees. A journalist wrote a column against the announcement,” he said.

He said since there was no mechanism to provide security to only one segment of society, the portion of welfare was also included in the bill.

Legal expert Aftab Alam, who was asked to submit his recommendations, said a United Nations Action Plan for Journalists’ Security was announced in 2012.

“Pakistan has endorsed the plan. So it is mandatory to do legislation for journalists’ security and that is why the old bill has again been taken up for discussion. In Pakistan, 119 journalists have been killed during the past 15 years. Of them, 60 were killed at point-blank range, but only two cases — of Daniel Pearl and Wali Babar — were decided. Even these cases have been stuck after the first phase of trial,” he said.

Dawn

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court observed on Thursday that million of rupees are beings spent on the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) but their details are not being furnished in the court.

A 2-member bench of the apex court presided over by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja took up the media commission case for hearing.

During the hearing, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja remarked that freedom of expression is there under Article 19 of the Constitution but the judiciary and armed forces cannot be criticised. He directed PEMRA to upload all the details on its website. He remarked that people should be informed about the details from July 2012 to-date.

The Information Ministry filed a report in the Supreme Court (SC) in the media commission case. The PEMRA chairman and other parties appeared before the court. PEMRA told the court that 17,500 complaints were received and action was taken on 17,208 complaints and action has yet to be taken on 248 complaints.

The deputy attorney general while presenting the report from the Information Ministry told the court that Senate approved the journalists’ code of conduct and now this is lying with a committee. He said the Pakistan Broadcasting Association (PBA) should be heard in the case. The information secretary told the court that PBA attended the first meeting and said it would not accept the code of conduct for journalists framed by the committee.

Justice Jawwad S Khawaja remarked, “Should we send invitations if someone does not come. Issuing warrants is a wrong thing. See the old order. Who represented PBA?” The information secretary told that Shakil Masud was PBA chairman at that time. Justice Jawwad remarked, “Did PBA express reservations over the code of conduct for journalists?” The information secretary said PEMRA has its own code of conduct but it is not following the same in letter and spirit. Justice Jawwad remarked, “Article 19 gives freedom of expression. Criticism on judiciary and army is banned but the relevant laws are not being implemented.”

The court issued notices to the president and other office bearers of Pakistan Broadcasting Association (PBA) and sought reply from them. Special Advisor to Prime Minister Irfan Siddiqui has also been summoned to tell the court about the details of the committee constituted by the prime minister. The hearing of the case was adjourned till June 2.

Daily Times

The post Media commission case: ‘Judiciary, army cannot be criticised despite freedom of expression’ appeared first on Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF).

But the biggest dilemma of the leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has been that he heavily depends on ‘ill- informed’ media advisers and never applied his own mind before giving such statements.

In the last 34 days at the D-Chowk or Dharna Chowk, he has made so many blunders while accusing people that it often caused an embarrassment to his own party. He made similar kind of mistakes in his interviews before and after the May 2013 elections.

During his Dharna, his best part time hobby is to attack on Geo and Jang Group and the best part-time hobby of his ‘Tiger Force’ is to beat or harass journalists, including female staffers, pelt stones on Geo building, etc.

On the other hand, the police, instead of providing protection, picked their own targets and attacked journalists, mostly belonging to different private TV channels, which is most deplorable.

If the allegations come from a national leader like Imran Khan, it is serious, even if it has no basis or the leader does not have any evidence. But, if he has, I would request him to make it public and then file a petition in the Supreme Court and take legal action against them.

Similar kind of allegations were leveled in June 2012 when a list of 19 journalists was circulated with unnamed source and they were accused of getting plots from the Bahria Town.

Hamid Mir and Absar Alam did the right thing by filing a petition in the Supreme Court and offered themselves for “accountability.” Later, some other journalists named in the list also joined the petition, including myself and Asma Sherazi.

We also took a position that let the Ministry of Information’s “Secret Fund” be abolished and whoever was paid from this fund, his or her name should be made public.

The two-member SC bench not only took up the matter but as a result, appointed a two-member commission headed by Justice (retd) Nasir Aslam Zahid and former information minister Javed Jabbar to look into this matter and come up with recommendations.

The commission’s comprehensive report is also a part of the court record and also available in “book form,” if Imran wants to read it. All those who really want to make this profession clean from all kinds of dirt must also read this report.

The court also sought the details of the secret fund from the minister of information, and one such list may still be available on the SC website and is part of the court record in the petition Hamid Mir-Absar Alam vs. Federation of Pakistan.

As a result of this petition, the information ministry’s “Secret Fund” was abolished. I would be more than happy if the Ministry of Information was abolished like in many democratic countries.

This is the maximum a journalist can do and I must congratulate Hamid Mir and Absar Alam on taking such a bold stance.But, now once again, Imran, a national leader, believes whoever is critical of him and his politics and Dharna are “paid” by the government or intelligence agencies. So, now he should provide solid evidence like a true leader. He also claimed that government advertisements worth 100,000 crore were released since the Dharna to pro-government print and electronic media.

Imran should also assess the credentials of the people who had provided him such “information,” may be in order to save their own neck.Allegations of corruption against journalists are nothing new. It started from the days of the first prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan. Successive governments used the Ministry of Information’s “Secret Funds.” Intelligence agencies also have used their secret funds to seek information or spread disinformation. At times, the agencies used such funds even against the government. But, accusations without any evidence can put leaders like Imran Khan’s credibility at stake and may raise the question of “Sadiq and Amin” under Article 62 and 63.

It was on August 8th, 1990, a few days after the late Benazir Bhutto’s government was sacked by former president Ghulam Ishaq Khan when she called an urgent press conference at the Bilawal House and besides blaming the premier intelligence agency for the dismissal of her government, accused some journalists of being on the payroll of agencies.

Three years later, when she again came to power, I reminded her that as the prime minister, she could ask for the list of journalists working on the payroll and also demanded that she should abolish the Ministry of Information and the Secret Fund. She failed in getting the list and abolishing the ministry or the Secret Fund.

Thus, every mainstream political party whenever criticised leveled such allegations against the media. But, when they come into power, they never release the list of such journalists whom they accuse are on payroll.

Whether Imran’s allegations are based on “facts or fiction,” it has certainly posed a serious challenge to the independent media and professional journalists.In the famous Asghar Khan case, some journalists, including editors, were named in the list submitted by the former ISI chief, Lt Gen (retd) General Asad Durrani.

So, let Imran Khan come out with the facts and evidence against the journalists whom he believes are writing or speaking against him because they are “paid”. Earlier, Imran had also claimed that journalists were paid some Rs250 crores and even in some of the TV talk shows, such allegations were made but still without evidence like the one made a few years back.

Imran should see and read his own speeches before accusing anchors and columnists of not giving a correct figure about the crowd assembled at the Dharna Chowk everyday.It would be interesting to see how many journalists in this country really believe that over a million or half a million or over 100,000 people attend the PTI Dharna. I still believe that it was an impressive show in the first three or four days but later it lost its impact. As compared to the PTI, the show of Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) was more impressive and consistent.

I wish Imran Khan’s “media team” should have provided him the facts about “professional and non-professional journalists,” and also about the “paratroopers” who have entered this profession after 2002, with the growth of private television industry.

Such allegations of Imran on journalists, who are critical of him in the last 34 days, also showed that he does not like criticism. Perhaps, he likes people who always praise him. Sincere political workers and leaders are the ones who show “dissent”.

Journalists’ bodies like the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) have rightly demanded the government to constitute a high-powered judicial commission to probe these allegations.

I also request Imran to have an internal probe into the position he has taken against the media, including allegations of corruption. Let the PTI commission be constituted, headed by Justice (retd) Wahjiuddin Ahmad. He should be authorised to get the services of any senior lawyer or retired judge. Let him also probe the government advertisements of rupees one billion which have allegedly been given to the pro-government media.

As I said, the allegations of corruption against journalists are nothing new in this country. But, when it comes from the champion of “Naya Pakistan,” it should also be substantiated.The recommendations of the Media Commission provide the best guideline to avoid such allegations but accusations coming from someone like Imran Khan, has disappointed the journalistic community and a serious question has emerged about his political outlook, as the national leaders are not supposed to level such serious allegations against senior journalists, anchors and columnists without any evidence. It should be remembered that journalists have already created history by offering themselves for accountability.

The News

The court was hearing a set of identical petitions filed by the Independent Media Corporation and Independent News Corporation against the suspension of Geo News, Geo Tez, Geo Kahani and Geo Entertainment transmission by the cable operators.

Petitioner’s counsel Jam Asif submitted that the cable operators had no authority to suspend the transmission of licensed TV channels or change their position.

He said private cable operators did not comply with the orders of Pemra and hence the broadcast of Geo News, Geo Entertainment, Geo Tez and Geo Kahani remained suspended for the last four months. He submitted that blocking the transmission of Geo TV channels was a violation of the SC and High Court’s orders that restrained Pemra and cable operators from blocking or interfering with their smooth transmission.

The SHC’s division bench, headed by Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, asked the counsel for Pemra if the authority could cancel the licence of cable operators who were violating the law and what action had been taken against those who were not complying with the Supreme Court orders.

Pemra counsel Kashif Hanif submitted that they had issued show cause notices to cable operators who were not broadcasting the transmission of the Geo TV. He said the cable operators replied that they were not broadcasting the Geo TV transmission as the case was sub judice. He said Pemra would take an appropriate action against the cable operators after the court directive.

The court observed that the Supreme Court had directed the cable operators and Pemra and it should be implemented in letter and spirit. It further said if the orders were not complied with then the aggrieved parties could file contempt of court applications with the Supreme Court.

After partly hearing the arguments of the petitioners counsel, the court adjourned the hearing for September 10 with direction to repeat notices to un-served respondents. Ministry of Information, Pemra and cable operators including Syed Imran Haider Abidi of Home Vision Network, Kazim (Acting CEO) of Media Plus Communication, Ghufran Mujtaba of City Communication, Ikhlaq Ahmed of Karachi Cable Service, Mehmood Ahmed of City Communication Cable Network Sukkur, Ahmed Ali of A.A Cable Network Nawabshah, Skyline Cable Network, Mohammad Hussain of Track Communication, Zahir Ali of City Cable Network Hyderabad, Sheikh Asim Rasool of New Asia Communication and Nadir Shahani of Highway Communication were cited as respondents in the petitions.

The News

Talking to newsmen here he said curbs on Geo are not acceptable under any circumstances and they must be removed forthwith. It is surprising that other channels are available but Geo is being banned.

Jakhrani also condemned manhandling of journalists especially lady journalists in the sit-ins here and said even otherwise ladies enjoy respect in our society. He also said no justification can be accepted for mistreatment of journalists belonging to Geo at the sit-in of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and the leadership should take notice of such events.

The News

A three-judge bench headed by Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk suspended the high court’s order when senior counsel Irfan Qadir representing Mubasher Lucman of ARY News argued that the verdict was “arbitrary and whimsical”.

The apex court also issued notices to Attorney General Salman Aslam Butt, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra), Shohada Foundation and Geo TV channel. Date for the next hearing will be fixed later.

Taking note of a series of talk shows which were critical of a judge of the Supreme Court (Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja), the IHC had slapped the ban on Mr Lucman on June 11.

The restraining order was passed by the high court on a petition filed by Shohada Foundation through Advocate Tariq Asad which alleged that Mr Lucman had launched a campaign against the judge.

Mr Lucman pleaded in his petition that the impugned order was “grossly illegal” because it undermined the independence of Pemra and negated the spirit of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution, particularly when his show ‘Khara Such’ was “subject matter of proceedings presently pending in the Supreme Court”.

The petition said the Supreme Court, despite having seen a video clip of the show, had exercised restraint, being conscious of the importance of freedom of speech.

DAWN

Information Minister Sharjeel Inam Memon rushed to the Press Gallery to persuade media persons’ representatives to end their token walkout.Sharjeel told journalists that the ruling PPP in the province was against the shutdown of any private TV channel including the suspension Geo News transmission. He said the PPP always opposed the shutdown of Geo TV.

Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists leader Amin Yousuf said a conspiracy was in action to divide the media fraternity.President of Karachi Union of Journalists GM Jamali said Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif had so far failed to deliver justice to Geo TV. He said the prime minister had been duly informed that there were conspiracies against the Geo TV.

He said the statement of Defence Minister Khawaja Asif had exposed the situation that in fact it was the PM who had approved the shutdown of Geo News transmission.Geo News Karachi Bureau Chief Faisal Aziz Khan said the Sindh government of PPP must adhere to Benazir Bhutto Shaheed’s stand on the freedom of expression and freedom of media.

He said the Sindh government should make it binding upon the TV cable operators to resume the transmissions of other channels in the network of Geo TV in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court.

He further said the Sindh government should also ensure the arrest of criminals responsible for torching the copies of Daily Jang and The News.On getting assurances from the Sindh information minister, the protesting journalists ended their token protest.

The News