24 hours courts: Will SC prioritise inquiry of ‘threat letter’?

ISLAMABAD: A question arose about the Supreme Court (SC) whether it will prioritise the inquiry of the ‘threat letter’ sent by the former National Assembly (NA) Speaker Asad Qaiser as the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umar Ata Bandial gave recent remarks about the top court’s 24/7 working hours.

CJP Justice Umar Ata Bandial, while hearing a presidential reference seeking interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution of Pakistan yesterday, remarked that the courts work for 24 hours and no one needs to point a finger at the judiciary.

He was responding to former prime minister Imran Khan’s question regarding the opening of the SC at midnight on April 9 prior to his ouster from his office following a successful no-trust motion.

It is pertinent to mention here that a five-member larger bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Bandial and comprising Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Aijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel had resumed hearing the presidential reference yesterday.

The CJP also remarked that they don’t care about what is being said on social media as they are the protector of the Constitution. CJP Bandial added that the SC expects political leaders to defend judicial orders in public.

Ahsan Iqbal says lettergate scandal to be investigated

Following his remarks, a question arose whether the top court would prioritise the inquiry into the lettergate scandal just like the SC’s doors were opened at midnight on the day of voting on the no-trust motion against Imran Khan that could lead to Article 6 summoning into action.

The lettergate scandal is now becoming a major issue in the country as Imran Khan’s narrative is completely revolving around it. The judicial inquiry into the diplomatic cable, known as the ‘threat letter’ will end the political turmoil if the claims made by Imran Khan are proved wrong.

Just like the top court prioritise the no-trust voting on April 9, the SC should also prioritise the inquiry into the lettergate scandal at the earliest.

Multiple letters

The threatening letter received by PM Imran Khan-led Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government was actually sent to multiple key personalities of the state institutions, sources told News360.

“Not only single, but multiple letters are also a reality. It was also a reality that the no-confidence motion against PM Imran Khan was brought to the National Assembly (NA) just after the threatening letter.” The former premier had also informed his spokespersons that he was threatened to face serious consequences in case of the failure of the no-confidence motion.

It may be noted here that PM Khan had made revelations about a threat letter sent to his government after he attempted to adopt an independent foreign policy and after he said ‘absolutely not’ to the US government for military bases in Pakistan.

He had made the revelations in March 27 power show in Islamabad ahead of the NA session on the no-trust move in which he claimed that foreign hands were involved in the attempts to topple the PTI government. He had also criticised the dual standards of the European Union (EU) during his speeches at public gatherings in different parts of the country.

PM Imran Khan had also claimed about some Pakistanis colluding with the foreign powers to topple his government.

Sources said that prior to the tabling of the no-confidence motion, Hussain Haqqani had met Nawaz Sharif in London on March 5 followed by the former NDS chief who had also held a meeting with Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) Quaid a few months ago.

Lettergate scandal probe

PM Sharif had announced a parliamentary probe into the lettergate scandal in his first speech and claimed that he will resign and go home if they are found involved in any conspiracy.

He announced that the threat letter will be placed before the Parliamentary Committee on National Security in an in-camera briefing and the allegations of a foreign plot to oust Imran Khan will be probed.

However, the PTI rejected the call and demanded an independent inquiry following SC’s prescribed commission.