Islamabad (June 20, 2017): The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Hussain Nawaz petition seeking court order to restrain the joint investigation team (JIT) from video recording of the investigation process and constitution of a commission to probe into leaking of his photo.
The three-member special implementation bench overseeing the implementation of the apex court verdict in Panama case had reserved verdict on the plea of Hussain Nawaz.
Click Play Button to Watch this Video
On Tuesday, the bench pronounced its verdict rejecting both the peals of the Prime Minister’s younger son.
The court ruled that the JIT could record video/audio of the statements of those appearing before it. However, the court declared that the video recording could not be used as evidence in any court against the person.
Regarding the plea of Nawaz to constitute commission on photo leak, the court said that the person behind the leak had been identified in JIT’s probe. It rejected the plea for commission.
The bench had reserved its verdict on last Wednesday. Hussain Nawaz had sought formation of a commission to investigate a photo ‘leak’ from his appearance before the joint investigation team (JIT) probing allegations of money laundering against the Sharif family and restraining the JIT from video recording of those recording statement before it.
Hussain Nawaz’s lawyer Khawaja Haris while presenting his arguments against the use of video cameras during JIT proceedings had said that the law did not allow for video recording which, he maintained, was of no legal value.
Haris warned the court of the possibility of video being leaked in the future which, he said, would have much greater consequences.
Hussain’s counsel claimed that the video recording was being used to add undue pressure on witnesses. “What is the need for it when it cannot be used as evidence?” he had asked.
He had claimed that witnesses were being pressured to change their statements.
Justice Ejaz Afzal said that the video recording does not change the legal value of the statement. “It is only used to determine the correct context of the statement,” he had asserted, maintaining that the rights of witnesses remain unaffected.