Neha Ansari's article in "Foreign Policy" on Supression of Pakistan Media by Intelligence

The South Asia Channel

Not Fit to Print: An Insider Account of Pakistani Censorship

• BY Neha Ansari
• NOVEMBER 20, 2014

"Imran [Khan], [Tahir ul] Qadri, and the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] are our best friends," our weekly editorial meeting at Pakistan's Express Tribune was (jokingly) told on Aug. 13, 2014, a day before the two political leaders began their separate long marches from Lahore to Islamabad, and plunged the country into crisis. "We know it's not easy, but that's the way it is -- at least for now. I promise to make things better soon," said the editor, who had called the meeting to inform us about the media group's editorial policy during the sit-ins and protests that would eventually, momentarily paralyze the Pakistani government.
The senior editorial staff, myself included, reluctantly agreed to the orders, which came from the CEO, because our jobs were on the line. Media groups in Pakistan are family-owned and make all decisions unilaterally -- regardless of whether they concern marketing and finance or editorial content and policy -- advancing their personal agendas through the influential mainstream outlets at their disposal. A majority of the CEOs and media house owners are businessmen, with no background (or interest) in the ethics of journalism. The owners and publishers make it very clear to their newsrooms and staff -- including the editor -- that any tilt or gloss they proscribe is non-negotiable. As a result, serious concerns persist about violence against and the intimidation of members of the media. In fact, Pakistan ranks 158 out of 180 countries in the 2014 World Press Freedom Index.
Yet there is also a more elusive problem within the country's press landscape: the collusion of Pakistan's powerful military and the nation's media outlets. I experienced this first-hand while I worked as a journalist at the Express Tribune during the recent protests led by Khan, the populist cricketer-turned-politician, and Qadri, a Pakistani-Canadian cleric and soapbox orator.
During this time, the owners of Pakistani media powerhouses -- namely ARY News, the Express Media Group, and Dunya News -- received instructions from the military establishment to support the "dissenting" leaders and their sit-ins. The military was using the media to add muscle and might to the anti-government movement in an attempt to cut Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif down to size.
The media obliged.
At the Express Media Group, anything related to Khan and Qadri were inexorably the lead stories on the front page or the hourly news bulletin. I witnessed polls showing support for Sharif being censored, while news stories on the misconduct of the protesters, along with any evidence that support among the protestors for Khan and Qadri was dwindling, were axed. While the BBC was publishing stories about how Qadri's protesters were allegedly being paid and Dawn, the leading English-language Pakistani newspaper -- and the Express Tribune's main competitor -- was writing powerful editorials about the military's role in the political crisis, we were making sure nothing negative about them went to print.
Day after day, my national editor told me about how he received frantic telephone calls late in the evening about what the lead story should be for the next day and what angle the article should take. First, we were told to focus on Khan. "Take this as Imran's top quote," "This should be in the headline," "Take a bigger picture of him" were the specific directives given by the CEO. Shortly after, the news group's owner was agitated that the newspaper had not been focusing enough on Qadri. We later found out that the military establishment was supporting the two leaders equally and the media was expected to do the same.
In their professional capacities, the editor and desk editors tried to put up a fight: they allowed some columns against the protests slip through; they did not extend the restrictions to publish against Khan and Qadri to the Web version of the newspaper; and they encouraged reporters to focus on the paper's strengths, such as investigative and research-based reports. However, it was difficult for the staff to keep its spirits high with the CEO's interference and his readiness to abide by the establishment's instructions. To be sure, the dictates were never given to the senior editorial staff, of which I was a part, directly. They were instead relayed to the editor or the national editor (who heads the main National Desk) via the CEO and then forwarded to us.
People often speculate about the media-military collusion in Pakistan, but in the instance of the current political standoff in the federal capital, as well as the Geo News controversy -- where the establishment was seen resorting to extreme methods, such as forcing cable operators to suspend Geo's transmission and impelling competing media houses to publish news stories against Geo, to curtail the broadcast of the largest and most-watched television channel for accusing then-ISI chief Zaheer-ul-Islam of being behind the gun attack on Hamid Mir, its most-popular anchor -- the media and the military worked hand-in-hand.
In most cases, it is common knowledge that the heavyweight broadcast anchors have strong ties to members of the military establishment, and they personally take direct instructions that are then conveyed to the owners of their respective media groups. This bias is often reflected in their coverage.
The anchors not only indulge in inaccurate reporting, but also shape political discourse against the democratically elected government and even the efficacy of democracy itself. Former Pakistani government officials have corroborated this by narrating their experience. One senior official told me: "Television anchors receive funds from the military establishment, if not the civilian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Today, all the Pakistani intelligence agencies and the military have media departments that ostensibly only disseminate background information and press briefings, but are actually guiding and managing discourses and the national narrative."
And this narrative is pro-army. Consider one example in particular.
On Aug. 31, when Khan's and Qadri's protesters had stormed the Parliament's gates, Mubasher Lucman, a television anchor for ARY News -- now the most-watched TV channel in Pakistan after Geo's transmission was illegally suspended -- saluted the army during a live broadcast and invited the military to take over "and save the protesters and the country." Earlier on Aug. 25, he welcomed the "sound of boots" (a reference to the military), as he had no sympathy for corrupt politicians who looted the country.
As if this was not enough, Lucman and his fellow anchors at ARY, some of whom are known to have strong ties to the army and the ISI, also made unverified claims on live television that seven protesters had been killed by riot police in the ensuing clash. (It was reported by other news outlets that three people had died, one by accident.) Moreover, when Javed Hashmi, the estranged president of Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) party, came out in public on Sep. 1 to reveal how Khan was banking on the military and the judiciary to end Sharif's government, Lucman slammed Hashmi, while his fellow anchor, Fawad Chaudhry, insisted that Hashmi had been "planted in [the] PTI" by the prime minister's closest aides.
Hashmi, who is known for his principled politics and who has been tortured and imprisoned by the military over the years, made the claims about Khan in a press conference where he revealed that: "Imran Khan said we cannot move forward without the army...He told us that he has settled all the matters; there will be elections in September."
Soon after this, we at the Express Tribune were instructed by the military to highlight statements released by the army's Inter-Services Public Relations office about how it was not a party to the crisis. When the military was on the defensive, issuing rebuttals to Hashmi's "revelations," we saw the instructions lessen and the powerful institution backing off. Yet media discourse throughout Pakistan's history has been influenced by the military, the most powerful institution in the country, or, in a few cases, has been strong-armed and intimidated by civilian heads of state until they were ousted by the military. There is a structural bias against democratic institutions and elected officials in Pakistan, and such a discourse has the not-unintentional effect of making the military seem like a better alternative, thereby reinforcing the notion that democracy does not work.
Media owners seem to "choose" the military establishment as it has been the most potent force and the only constant in Pakistan's polity. The institutional context of the country's power structure and patronage politics compels organizations and individuals to be a part of the system, which begins and ends with the military and its premier intelligence agency, the ISI. Abiding by the system without asking questions is rewarded. But even in a country with a deeply problematic history, the intensity of the recent interference is shocking.
Before the current political standoff, the establishment was dictating headlines and editorial policies during Sharif's trip to India for the inauguration of his counterpart, Narendra Modi, on May 26. While working at the Express Tribune, I was instructed to change the lead story on the Sharif-Modi meeting to give it a negative tint, concentrating on how the Indian prime minister was not welcoming as he focused on security issues. The phrase "show-cause" had to be inserted in the headline, which was a direct order from the CEO, who was getting instructions from the military.
To be sure, the Express Media Group and its staff have been attacked several times during the past year for raising sensitive issues. And here too it tried to balance the military-sponsored anti-government slant by giving room to other opinions in the form of editorials and separate stories. But it also had to survive in a system where the military dominates every aspect of public life. It is a tough choice as the military refuses to protect the country's journalists, even as the media continues to safeguard the military's image and ostensible apolitical status.
Neha Ansari worked as a senior sub-editor and shift-in-charge at the Express Tribune's national desk in Karachi, Pakistan from 2013 to 2014. She is now a visiting researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C.

SC Judgement on honouring Domain of the Executive

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

PRESENT:

MR. JUSTICE NASIR-UL-MULK, HCJ

MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM

MR. JUSTICE IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY

CIVIL PETITION NO. 2124 OF 2013 &

C.M.A. NOs. 1079 & 4821 OF 2014

(On appeal against the order dated 10.10.2013 passed by Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in ICA No. 1005/2013)

Ghulam Rasool

… Petitioner

VERSUS

Government of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad and others

… Respondents

For the Petitioner:          Mr. Abdul Rahim Bhatti, ASC

For the Respondent (3):  Mr. Khurram Mumtaz Hashmi, ASC

For Federation:               Mr. Salman Aslam Butt, Attorney General

Mr. Muhammad Waqar Rana, Addl. Attorney General

Date of Hearing:             30.10.2014

JUDGMENT

CIVIL PETITION NO. 2124 OF 2013

                   IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.- Petitioner and others, who are serving employees of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and belong to surveillance cadre, being aggrieved of their promotion policy to next scale had filed a Constitution Petition before the learned Islamabad High Court. At the time of hearing of the petition, the respondent No. 3 raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, upon which the learned Single Judge in Chamber after hearing the parties dismissed the Writ Petition by observing that the petitioners are civil servants and the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said petition and that the proper forum for the matters in relation to terms and conditions of the civil servants is Federal Service Tribunal. The Intra Court Appeal filed by the petitioners also met the same fate. Hence this petition.

2.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgments.

3.                Admittedly the petitioner is enjoying the status of civil servant in terms of Section 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. His appointment letter has also been issued under the said Act and the proper forum for redressal of his grievance was Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal is functional and the petitioner, if so advised, can approach the said forum for redressal of his grievance. In these circumstances, the impugned judgments are unexceptionable. The petition is dismissed and leave refused.

ISSUE OF FILLING UP CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL POSTS (C.M.A. NOs. 1079 & 4821 OF 2014)

4.                During the hearing of Civil Petition No. 2124/2013 this Court had taken note of the fact that specific posts under the Constitution and under various statutes are pending and still have not been filled up. A concise statement in this behalf bearing CMA No. 1079/2014 has been filed by the Federal Government wherein steps have been outlined for the appointment of various constitutional posts and the problems the Government is facing in such appointments. Learned Attorney General for Pakistan has submitted that as there was no specific prayer made in the said concise statement, another CMA bearing No. 4821/2014 has been filed. He submitted that the Federal Government is facing difficulties in appointments to such offices in view of the direction given by this Court in paras 26 & 27 of the judgment reported as Khawaja Muhammad Asif Vs. Federation of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 1205); that in the said judgment a procedure has been prescribed for appointments to certain offices in statutory bodies, autonomous bodies, semi-autonomous bodies, regulatory bodies etc to be processed through a Commission; that some of these offices are created by statutes providing their own procedure for appointment and, therefore, some anomalies would arise in case the appointments are made in accordance with the directions given in Khawaja Asif supra judgment and the business of the Federal Government is suffering. He further added that since assumption of office by the Prime Minister and the Federal Cabinet, the Federal Government has sincerely tried to fully comply with the above said judgment regarding the proposed Commission and initially certain Public Sector Organizations were included in the schedule of posts under the purview of the Commission but despite the sincere endeavours there are administrative issues that are creating hurdles. In this regard a list has also been filed whereby it has been brought to the notice of this Court that so far only for the following Public Sector Organizations, appointments can be made:-

          i)        Pakistan Telecommunication Authority

                   a)       Member Technical

                   b)       Member Finance

          ii)       Pakistan Television Corporation

          iii)      Pakistan Steel Mills Limited

                   According to the list, there are 22 statutory bodies and 33 Public Sector Companies established under Companies Ordinance, 1984, whose heads are yet to be appointed by the Commission.

5.                Learned Attorney General further added that while making the directions, the provisions of Article 90 of the Constitution where the power of appointment has been vested in the Federal Government has not been taken into consideration by this Court; that the contents of para 26 & 27 of the Khawaja Asif supra judgment were in the form of certain recommendations and suggestions which could not have assumed the status of law. In this regard he relied on Shahid Orakzai and another Vs. Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 365). He further added that various Acts / Ordinances lay down the criteria for high-level appointments and empower the Federal Government to make such appointments, which the Federal Government is bound to follow; that such provisions also inherently envisage the ability of the Federal Government to adopt any suitable manner, method and policy of vetting, assessing and selecting suitable candidates for such appointments according to the peculiar needs and complexities of specific appointments; that when the law provides for a thing to be done in a particular way, it should have been done in that way and in no other way; that none of the Acts / Ordinances envisage any forum  or body like the Commission; that an essential function of the Government has been given to the Commission which is against the law; that the Members of the Commission are not accountable to anybody and that since the Commission has no legal status, its Members are not subject to judicial review by the Court, therefore, there is no procedure available to check the possible abuse of power by the Commission. On the other hand, he added that the Federal Government or the Prime Minister, as the case may be, are accountable to the Parliament under the Constitution and also to the People of Pakistan and their actions are subject to judicial review. He lastly prayed that the directions contained in Khawaja Asif supra judgment at paras 26 to 30 may be revisited or clarified.

6.                We have heard learned Attorney General for Pakistan at some length.

7.                During the last care-taker Government, a large number of appointments were made without following any merit or procedure that were against the Constitutional mandate of a care-taker Government. Khawaja Muhammad Asif, a Parliamentarian, had filed a petition before this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution against the said appointments and this Court had inter alia made following directions:-

“26.       Be that as it may, in order to ensure the enforcement of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution and considering it to be a question of public importance, a Commission headed by and comprising two other competent and independent members having impeccable integrity, may be the Federal Ombudsman or Chairman NAB or a Member of Civil Society having exceptional ability and integrity, is required to be constituted by the Federal Government through open merit based process having fixed tenure of four years to ensure appointments in statutory bodies, autonomous bodies, semi-autonomous bodies, regulatory authorities to ensure appointment of all the government controlled corporations, autonomous and semi-autonomous bodies, etc. The Commission should be mandated to ensure that all public appointments are made solely on merits. The Commission should discharge mainly the following functions:--

(i)         Regulate public appointments processes within his remit;

(ii)        implement a Code of Practice that sets out the principles and core processes for fair and transparent merit-based selections;

(iii)       chair the selection panels for appointing heads of public/statutory bodies and chairs and members of their boards, where necessary;

(iv)       appoint Public Appointments Assessors to chair the selection panels for appointing heads of public/statutory bodies and chairs and members of their boards, where appropriate;

(v)        report publicly on a public/statutory body's compliance with the Code of Practice, including examples of poor and good performance, and best practice;

(vi)       investigate complaints about unfair appointment process;

(vii)      Monitor compliance with the Code of Practice;

(viii)     Ensure regular audit of appointments processes within his remit;

(ix)       Issue an annual report giving detailed information about appointments processes, complaints handled, and highlights of the main issues which have arisen during the previous year. The annual report for the previous calendar year should be laid before the Parliament by 31st March;

(x)        Take any other measures deemed necessary for ensuring that processes for public sector appointments that fall in his remit are conducted honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance with law, and that corrupt practices are fully guarded against.

27.       The Code of Practice should provide foundations for transparent merit-based public appointments. All public appointments must be governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit, out of individuals who through abilities, experience and qualities have a proven record that they best match the need of the public body in question. No public appointment must take place without first being recommended by the Commission. The appointments procedures should be subjected to the principle of proportionality, that is, what is appropriate for the nature of the post and the size and weight of its responsibilities. Those, selected must be committed to the principles and values of public service and perform their duties with highest level of integrity. The information provided about the potential appointees must be made public. The Commission may from time to time conduct an inquiry into the policies and procedures followed by an appointing authority in relation to any appointment. He may also issue a statement or publish a report commenting publicly on any breach or anticipated breach of the Code. The appointment of the successful candidate must be publicized.

.

.

.

.

.

30(e)    The appointments in autonomous/semi-autonomous bodies, corporations, regulatory authorities, etc., made before the appointment of Caretaker Government shall also be subjected to review by the elected Government by adopting the prescribed procedure to ensure that right persons are appointed on the right job, in view of the observations made in above paras (Paras.Nos.25 and 26)” 

8.                We have noted that while making such directions, the provisions of Article 90 of the Constitution were overlooked by this Court. Article 90 reads as under:-

“90.     (1) Subject to the Constitution, the executive authority of the Federation shall be exercised in the name of the President by the Federal Government, consisting of the Prime Minister and the Federal Ministers, which shall act through the Prime Minister, who shall be the Chief Executive of the Federation.

(2)        In the performance of his functions under the Constitution, the Prime Minister may act either directly or through the Federal Ministers.”

9.                The appointment of a Commission and the power to make recommendations for such appointments is not in accordance with Article 90 of the Constitution where the power of appointment has been vested in the Federal Government. It appears that in the light of the observations made in paras 26 & 27 of the Khawaja Asif supra judgment the legal authority has been vested in a Commission and its recommendations are being made binding upon the Prime Minister. It is by now a well settled law that the responsibility of deciding suitability of an appointment, posting or transfer fell primarily on the executive branch of the State. It is also a settled law that the Courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering in policy making domain of the Executive. In Executive District Officer (Revenue), District Khushab Vs. Ijaz Hussain (2012 PLC(CS) 917) this Court has held that framing of recruitment policy and rules thereunder fell in the executive domain; that the Constitution of Pakistan is based on the principle of trichotomy of powers where legislature is vested with the functions of law making, the executive with its enforcement and judiciary of interpreting the law and that Courts could neither assume the role of policy maker nor that of a law maker. The contents of the said paras were in the form of certain recommendations, which could not have assumed the status of law. In Shahid Orakzai and another Vs. Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 365) the importance of consulting the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan has been stated in the matter of appointment of Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau and it was expected that such recommendation had to be given effect for all future appointments. Subsequently in Ch. Nisar Ali Khan Vs. Federation of Pakistan etc (PLD 2013 SC 568) this Court had clarified that in the absence of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan from the appointment process of Chairman NAB, the observations in Shahid Orakzai supra case were not to be treated as binding and that “a suggestion or recommendation made by the Court in a judgment though entitled to due respect, deference and consideration, does not travel beyond a suggestion or a recommendation and it does not by itself assume the status of law. By its nature and form a suggestion or a recommendation is simply what it is, nothing more and nothing less.” In Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan etc (PLD 2013 SC 195), this Court has held that “whenever there are statutory provisions or rules or regulations which govern the matter of appointments, the same must be followed”. Keeping in view the above discussion, it can be said that the matter of appointment of heads of statutory bodies, autonomous / semi-autonomous bodies, corporations, regulatory authorities etcetera are governed under specific statutory provisions which cannot be overlooked or substituted by some other mechanism. We have noted that various Acts / Ordinances lay down a specific criteria / qualifications for high-level appointments and empower the Federal Government to make such appointments. Some of them are (i) Federal Public Service Commission of Pakistan Ordinance, 1977, (ii) Competition Act, 2010, (iii) Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, (iv) Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, (v) NEPRA Act, 1997, (vi) Securities & Exchange Commission Act, 1997, (vii) Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, and (viii) Companies Ordinance, 1984. The above referred Acts / Ordinances provide a complete procedure of appointments, which the Federal Government is bound to comply with as mandated under Article 5 of the Constitution. The Federal Government has been expressly empowered by the Legislature to make high-level appointments in accordance with the criteria specified in the concerned Acts / Ordinances. In case of companies incorporated in the public sector under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, the appointment and removal of Directors is comprehensively dealt with under the said Ordinance and the memorandums, rules / regulations framed there under. However, it is also made clear that the Court’s deference to the Executive Authority lasts for only as long as the Executive makes a manifest and demonstrable effort to comply with and remain within the legal limits which circumscribe its power. Even where appointments are to be made in exercise of discretionary powers, such powers are to be employed in a reasonable manner. Even otherwise, the policy adopted by the Federal Government in making appointments is open to judicial review on the touchstone of the Constitution and the laws made there under i.e. in case of any illegality in the ordinary process of appointment, this Court as well as the High Courts have sufficient powers under Articles 184 & 199 of the Constitution to exercise judicial review. There are similar Commissions in other countries including the United Kingdom, Canada and India. However, all those commissions were made pursuant to specific laws / statutes enacted for that purpose. In Australia, the Australian Public Service Commission was established pursuant to the Public Service Act, 1999. Similarly in Canada, the Federal Accountability Act, 2006, was enacted by the Parliament for inter alia putting in place measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability. However, no public appointments commission has yet been created. No statutory Commission has been crated in Pakistan for examining suitability of persons for appointment to high public offices. The Government may consider the establishment of such a Commission through legislation in order to ensure transparency which would also enable the executive authority to make an informed decision while making appointments.

10.               In view of the afore-referred circumstances, we clarify that it is the exclusive preserve of the Federal Government to appoint heads of statutory bodies, autonomous bodies, semi-autonomous bodies, regulatory bodies etc as also to make appointments on merits under the Acts / Ordinances wherein certain criteria has been laid down for such purpose. CMA Nos. 1079 & 4821 of 2014 are allowed in terms noted above.

11.               Now that there are no impediments in the process of appointments to the offices in the statutory bodies and to public sector companies referred to in paragraph 4 above, they shall be filled up without loss of time by the end of December, 2014. A preliminary report of the progress made towards the appointment shall be submitted by the learned Attorney General for Pakistan for our perusal in chambers by the 10^th of December, 2014.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

JUDGE

Islamabad, the

Announced on _______________

Approved For Reporting

Khurram

Islamabad High Court Order in Contempt of Court Case Against ARY Salman Iqbal etc - June 13, 2014

Islamabad High Court Order in Contempt of Court Case Against ARY, Salman Iqbal etc - June 13, 2014:
This criminal original has been preferred by District  Bar Association Islamabad through its \President Mr. Naseer Ahmed Kiani advocate, feeling aggrieved of programme "Khara Sach" aire dfrom 22nd to 31st May, 2014 on ARY Channel through which naked, unprecendented, polluted and malicious campaign has been launched against the institution of Judiciary, by focusing some of honourable Judges, which according to the petitioner is besides the code of conduct of PEMRA, to which all the channels undertook to abide by at the time of issuance of licences.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a matter of record that differenct institutions have been targeted by differenct channels, but unfortunately persons involved in spreading hatred against the institutions have neither been booked in any case nor any restriction has been imposed to check their unlawful acts.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that Mr. Mubasher Luqman while conducting programme on Dunya TV Channel was caught red handed while asking for irrelevant consideration and due to that stinking act, he was expelled from Dunya TV Channel but through efforts of some hidden hands, he was accommodated by ARY channel. The malicious campaign against the institution of  Judiciary crossed all the limits but the regulatory authority took no action to stop this malicious campaign.

4. The learned cousel added that the institution of Judiciary and Bar always respected the elecronic and print media but unfortunately very few in number amongst the journlaists are bringing bad name to the journalism and therefore their own vested interests are bent upon to attack the institution. This situation may constrained the legal fraternity to ask this court and federal government to constitute a commission to probe about the assests of the anchor persons and their families, sources to which their properties raised, foreign countries in which they are in contact, money which they received from difference sources and gifts which they accept, fleet of cars, vehicles which they keep, foreign tours and the hotels in which they live, shopping made on whose expense and also to ask about the tax they pay and to know that they live beyond their means. It can also be questioned that what type of gifts reach to their houses from different embassies and from other persons, which are the channels and anchors who are on pay roll of the land mafia and are found watching its interests in consideration of plots which they took.

5. Since the programme aired from 22nd to 31st May, 2014, apparently is an attack on the institution of Judiciary which prima facie, constitutes an offence of contempt of court, therefore, notices be issued to Mr. Salman Iqbal CEO ARY News Channel, Mr. Mubashir Luqma Anchor person ARY, Acting Chairman PEMRA and Secretary Ministry of Information to appear before the Court and explain that why this contemptuous act committed continuously and why no action has been taken by the Regulatory authority?

6. Chairman PEMRA further directed to produce CDs of programme "Khara Sach" from 22nd to 31 May, 2014 and also of 12th of June 2014, as through latter programme another order of this court dated 11-06-2014 has not only been frustrated but ridiculed as well.

7. Let instant matter be posted for any date in the first week of July 2014.

Judge ..... Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddqui

Geo/Hamid Mir-ISI standoff - PILDAT releases monitor on Civil Military Relations in Pakistan - May 2014

Monitor

Civil Military Relations in Pakistan

May 1, 2014 to May 31, 2014

This Monitor of Civil-Military Relations covers the period between May 01- 31, 2014 and analyses the key issues affecting civil-military relations in Pakistan during this time.

Civil-Military & Media Relations

The civil-military and media relations continued to be tumultuous in May. The relations that soured after an attack on Mr. Hamid Mir1 continued to cast a long shadow on civil-military relations in Pakistan. The fiasco created by the PEMRA meeting and its legality or illegality for suspending the licences of three television channels owned by the Geo TV network2 further intensified the perception that the Government did not see eye-to-eye with the Military on the issue of the petition by the Ministry of Defence. While the petition against the network remains with the PEMRA, various officials of the Government including the President and the Prime Minister continued to take a public position that it was against the suspension or closure of any media house. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif addressing a conference in UK said that the Government, Media and Army must work together for the country to take Pakistan out of the multifarious and serious crises facing the motherland. "We all have to join hands to move forward. Be it the media or Pakistan's armed forces, the government or the security institutions, we all will have to work together. Pakistan is surrounded by crises and we have tried to put it back on track since coming to power," he said.3 On May 27,the Geo TV network and Jang Media Group tendered a public apology to the Armed Forces and Inter-Services Intelligence for hurling allegations against the D.G. ISI Lt. Gen. Zaheer-ul-Islam.In a statement, the Group said that "After serious retrospection, editorial debates, feedback and engagement with all parties, directly and indirectly, we have concluded that our coverage immediately after the tragic and unnerving attack on Hamid Mir on April 19 was excessive, distressful and emotional. The group accepted that the coverage of the incident was misleading, disproportionate and inappropriate giving impression of a campaign," although it followed current media practices, including the version of the Armed Forces with the photo of DG ISPR televised repeatedly. The group apologised to the D.G. ISI Lt. Gen. Zaheer-ul-Islam, his family, Pakistan Army and large number of television viewers for causing deep hurt.4 This appeared to be a positive step towards the restoration of Media-Military relations but the issue remains far from resolved.

Statements by Sitting Ministers

Despite a murky history of sour civil-military relations in Pakistan pointing to the critical need of utilising institutional and formal channels of communication on policy areas, it appears that the PML-N Government, or at least some of its Ministers have not learnt the value of this important lesson. Some of the Government Ministers continued to use news media - an extremely informal channel - to air views point to the growing stresses in civil military relations again. Insinuating that Mr. Imran Khan was following the diktats of the "establishment" in taking anti-Government and anti-Geo position and that attempts were being made to pit media against the Army and the Army against the politicians. An example in this regard include RanaSanaullah Khan, Law Minister Punjab, in a press talk termed Imran Khan as a toy in the hands of the 'establishment.' He said, "Establishment Khan gheirjamhooriquowatokaaala-e-kaar ban gayayhain5." While these may be valid concerns of the Government but airing these in public is in neither taking the State towards the solution of these nor towards the stability that we require. Government has formal channels and institutions available to it to voice issues and grievances. Those are the channels that must be effectively and regularly utilised. Often, it appears, parties in Government forget it is them who have been elected to power through popular vote. While the luxury of a knee-jerk reaction may be available to opposition in making public statements, the Government neither has nor should employ this strategy. At the end of the day, the job of a responsible Government is to try to contain and resolve conflict scenarios and not exacerbate those by taking sides, tempting as it may be.

Chief Minister Punjab meets COAS before PM's departure to India

Mr. Mohammad Shahbaz Sharif, Chief Minister of the Punjab, met with the Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif on May 26, 2014. While the meeting details were not officially disclosed, the media reports suggested the meeting had taken place to discuss Prime Minister's visit to India.6 In the constitutional demarcation of roles and powers in Pakistan, provinces and Provincial Chiefs have generally no official business to interact with the Military Chiefs. Perhaps the successive meetings have more to do with the person of the Chief Minister Punjab, younger brother of the Prime Minister, than his official position. If indeed the conversation between the two related to Prime Minister's trip to India, once again, it shows the Government is unwilling or unable to utilise official and formal channels of communication.

COAS Joins Meeting on Karachi Law and Order

The Chief of Army Staff (COAS) joined the Prime Minister in a meeting on Karachi Law and Order situation on May 14, 2014. Under ordinary circumstances, it is not the job of the Military to be part of internal security conversations. It is also not the first time that such a scenario has emerged in Pakistan in which the Military has been asked to join the conversation on internal security. However, as we progress on the road to democracy, and evaluate performance of elected Governments on providing good governance to the people, it is not the Military which should be continually asked to be part of internal security management. While in specific scenarios, it can and should be asked, but without planning and arrangements in place to strengthen the internal security apparatus, i.e., Police and other civil LEAs, the engagement of military in internal security arrangements only points to our worsening capability for internal security. It is also worth remembering the scenario in not so distant past when General AshfaqPervaizKayani, the then-COAS, had held an independent meeting with Karachi businesspersons and then directed the D.G. Rangers to meet the demands of the business community.7

Meeting of Prime Minister and COAS

In May 2014, the Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif met with Prime Minister Mohammad Nawaz Sharif 4 times. In the first meeting on May 08, 2014, the Army Chief briefed the Prime Minister about the security situation in Karachi, Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and FATA. In the second meeting during the month, on May 14, 2014 Karachi law & Order was discussed. The third meeting was held on May 20, 2014 to review security issues. The meeting was attended by Minister for Interior,ChaudhryNisar Ali Khan, MNA, Advisor to PM on Foreign Affairs and National Security Mr.Sartaj Aziz, DG ISI Lt. General Muhammad Zaheer-ul-Islam, Chief of General Staff, Lt. General AshfaqNadeem, DG MO Maj. General Amir Riaz. The fourth meeting was held on May 30, 2014 to review the internal security. The meeting was attended by the Federal Interior Minister ChaudhryNisar Ali Khan, DG ISI Lieutenant General Zaheerul Islam and other higher officials. The meeting was held to review the security situation of FATA and Balochistan.8

Defence Budget Debate by Senate Standing Committee on Defence

A public forum on Defence Budget was held by the Senate Standing Committee on Defence on May 19, 2014. Additional Secretary of the Ministry of Defence briefed the Committee, as well as the Defence Reporters Forum of the news media on details of Pakistan's Defence Budget. A media manual was also prepared and distributed by the Senate Standing Committee on Defence.

References:

1. For details, please see PILDAT Monitor on Civil-Military Relations in Pakistan, April 2014: http://www.pildat.org/Publications/publication/CMR/MonitoronCivil-MilitaryRelation sinPakistan_April012014_April302014.pdf 2. For details, please see Geo's licenses suspended till May 28: PEMRA, The Express Tribune, May 20, 2014: http://tribune.com.pk/story/710817/geos-licenses-suspended-till-may-28th-pemra/ 3. For details, please see Govt, media, army must work together for country: Nawaz, May 02, 2014: http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-30053-Govt-media-army-must-work-together %20-for-country-Nawaz 4. For details, please see Geo, Jang apologise to army, May 27, 2014: http://www.dawn.com/news/1108792/geo-jang-apologise-to-army 5. For details, please see Imran Khan is nothing but a toy: RanaSanaullah, May 20, 2014: http://youtubeproxy.co/browse.php/IrSfsQRY9Rk7BfjT9I_2FstOd_2FdNGDTi_2BEzE8oqG1 Vbmtdxk4FYSE_3D /b25 /fnorefer/ 6. For details, please see Shahbaz Sharif Meets Army Chief To Discuss Pakistan-India Relations, May 24, 2014: http://www.pakistantribune.com.pk/15118/shahbaz-sharif-meets-army-chief-discuss- pakistan-india-relations.html 7. For details, please see Businessmen win Kayani's Support, September 21, 2011: http://tribune.com.pk/story/257765/businessmen-win-kayanis-support/ 8. For details, please see PM Chairs Meeting to Review Security Situation in FATA and Balochistan, May 30, 2014: http://pmo.gov.pk/press_release_detailes.php?pr_id=513