Islamabad: The High Court raised questions on the in-camera trial of the cipher case.
The plea against the in-camera proceedings of the cipher case was heard by Islamabad High Court Justice Mian Gul Hasan Aurangzeb, in which Barrister Salman Akram Raja appeared through video link.
At the start of the hearing, Justice Mian Gul Hasan Aurangzeb remarked that I have some concern with the way the proceedings are proceeding. Questions raised about the behind-closed-doors trial are to be examined. Even with the presence of a couple of people or family members, it will remain a closed-door trial.
The Attorney General told the court that the statements of 25 prosecution witnesses have been recorded. After December 21, the statements of 12 witnesses were recorded in the presence of the media.
Justice Mian Gul Hasan Aurangzeb said that according to the previous hearing, if the trial is held in jail, then it will be open. Now the situation has changed that jail trial has been declared as in-camera trial. What happened in the presence of the in camera section 14 order in the field.
The court remarked that we have tried to understand the open trial in this judgment. In 1923, human rights were not known to the world as basic rights. This is a case of first impression before me. The safety of the estate should not be compromised. Look at the decision of the Supreme Court, they are saying that the material is insufficient.
The Attorney General said that the State’s position was that there were 3 witnesses whose statements should not have been aired. The statements of these witnesses were recorded on December 15, upon which Justice Mian Gul Hasan Aurangzeb said that the statements of 12 other witnesses were also recorded in the closed-door trial. Why you don’t understand, we have tried to explain to you what an open trial will be. Look at the judge’s reasons for in camera, there are 3 lines written in it.
The court said that it has clarified what open trial is. You come and you come, it’s not an open trial. Anyone can come in an open trial. The media is allowed to come whatever it wants. If not, there should be a regular order about it. Was the interrogation done in the presence of the media?
The Attorney General said that the 3 persons who were interrogated were related to cipher key code, decode. The Foreign Secretary’s statement on the cipher will also be in-camera. The court said that the prosecution should have asked the judge to order an in-camera trial for the 3 witnesses so that questions do not arise during the trial. Sometimes there is a good case but the way it is run it goes bad.
Prosecutor Raja Rizwan Abbasi said in the court that the application against the cipher in-camera trial is not admissible. On this occasion, the Attorney General said that the order for the cipher trial was made on December 14 and the trial began on December 15. If the court wants the cross-examination to be open, it will be done. The court said that this court is not saying that it is necessary that the trial should be open and it is done all over the world.
The Attorney General said that he assured that the in-camera interrogation will be only of those 4 witnesses who are connected with the foreign office’s cipher security. The court inquired whether these four witnesses are employees of the Foreign Office, to which the Attorney General said that the four witnesses are employees of the Foreign Office. All four witnesses are connected to the cipher transcribing and cipher security system. The job of these employees is to decode ciphers from all over the world.
The attorney general said that the details of how the cipher system works cannot be made public. The remaining 9 witnesses out of 13 will be re-examined. If the court declares the statements of 9 out of 13 witnesses to be null and void, it will happen again.
The court asked the counsel what would you say to the Attorney General’s offer to re-record the statements of the witnesses, to which Salman Akram Raja said that we request that the court first look at the trial court’s order for in-camera proceedings. . I have a copy of the court order for the statements of the first 3 witnesses. The lawyer said that the certified copy is a public document, on which the Attorney General said that I would request that it not be made public. Justice Mian Gul Hasan Aurangzeb said that I want to see these documents. You provide it to me immediately.
The court said that important constitutional issues have come up in this matter and the court will look into them. The Supreme Court in its judgment in this case also found the material insufficient. You made my mind very clear today. Later, the court adjourned the hearing of the case till January 11.
(function(d, s, id){
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) {return;}
js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;
js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3&appId=770767426360150”;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
(function(d, s, id) {
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) return;
js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;
js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_GB/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.7”;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));