ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday sought a clarification from Pakistan’s electronic media watchdog about the legal standing of the military’s media wing and its “exclusive authority” to decide who could appear on television talk shows as a defense analyst.
The court was hearing a case challenging a much-debated April 2019 notification by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority’s (PEMRA) in which it instructed TV channels to seek clearance from the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the military’s media wing, before inviting retired military officers on current affairs programs as analysts “to solicit their views on matters of national security.”
Following PEMRA’s notification, the ISPR released a list of 26 retired officers that it said were allowed to appear as defense analysts.
“When asked as to what is the legal standing of ISPR and how is ISPR assuming the exclusive right to determine who can be a Defense Analyst in Pakistan, the learned Assistant Attorney General seeks time to assist the Court,” Justice Babar Sattar’s written order read. “Let the matter be fixed for 20-11-2024.”
The court also questioned why PEMRA had issued that notification in the first place and whether it had received a request from within the Pakistan army or ISPR.
PEMRA’s lawyer sought more time from the court to respond.
“Let PEMRA produce before the Court the original noting file on the basis of which the impugned notification was processed, recommended and issued to assist the Court as to why PEMRA felt the need to issue the said notification,” Justice Sattar wrote.
During the hearing, the court also asked PEMRA’s counsel about the watchdog’s authority to regulate the content of discussions on TV and issue directions for the pre-clearance of individuals by ISPR or others.
PEMRA’s lawyer pointed to Section 20-A of the PEMRA Ordinance, which relates to the obligation of licensees to uphold the sovereignty, integrity and security of Pakistan.
“When asked as to what does pre-clearance of individuals providing content on TV have to do with the sovereignty or security of Pakistan and how can PEMRA impose a prior restraint on speech, the learned counsel for PEMRA seeks further time to assist the Court,” the written order read.
Pakistani journalist bodies and many journalists have long accused the government and the powerful military of censoring the press. Both deny allegations and insist they do not supress the freedom of the press.
Justice Sattar’s new order is nit his first challenge to the army. He was among six Islamabad High Court judges who earlier this year wrote a letter to the Supreme Judicial Council watchdog and accused the military’s ISI spy agency of intimidating and coercing them over legal cases, particularly “politically consequential” ones.
The judges provided various examples of alleged interference, including a case concerning Pakistan’s imprisoned former prime minister Imran Khan. The letter also mentioned incidents where the judges said their relatives were abducted and tortured and their homes were secretly surveilled, aiming to coerce them into delivering favorable judgments in specific cases.
In February 2019, the Supreme Court had also delivered a scathing verdict on the military and intelligence agencies exceeding their mandate and meddling in politics over their handling of protests in 2017 by a religious-political party.
In the past, Imran Khan’s main opponent, PM Shehbaz Sharif’s ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), had also accused the ISI of intimidating court decisions, including those that led to convictions of his elder brother Nawaz Sharif after his ouster from the prime minister’s office in 2017.
The powerful army plays an oversized role in Pakistani politics. The country has been ruled by military regimes for almost half its history since independence from Britain in 1947. Khan and the elder Sharif both have alleged that they were ousted by the military after they fell out with the generals.
The army denies it interferes in political matters. It has so far refrained from commenting on the judges’ letter regarding the ISI’s alleged interference and intimidation.
