Feb 16, 29
By Kamran Ali
PESHAWAR:
A two-member bench of the Peshawar High Court, comprising Justices Ijaz Anwer and Syed Attique Shah, banned interviews of suspected criminals in police custody by journalists and social media channels on February 13.
Justice Ijaz Anwar instructed the Inspector General of Police of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to respond to a writ petition filed by lawyer Jabir Khan. He expressed concern over the potential public perception if the court acquits a suspect, who has admitted to committing a crime in an interview.
The bench also observed that media trials of accused individuals render the judicial process redundant. “What purpose do courts serve if interviews alone can convict an accused?” he said.
The petition filed in the PHC by lawyer Jabir Khan sought orders for the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) to promptly ban the broadcast of media interviews with crime suspects during their investigation – “Such practices result in affecting the trials before courts”, he contended, by relying on Article 10A and 14 of the constitution.
He requested court to direct police to forbid journalists, TV reporters, vloggers, YouTubers, and Facebook users from entering the police station or jails in order to interview the accused.
In a similar case, Justice Ali Zia Bajwa of the Lahore High Court (LHC) imposed restrictions on media persons, prohibiting them from recording interviews with individuals held in custody. The court also directed Pemra to ensure that the privacy of suspects in custody is not violated by anyone carrying a camera or microphone.
The LHC had raised concerns about whether the media could coerce accused individuals into giving confessional statements during interviews without their consent. It emphasised that the right to remain silent is akin to his right to freedom of speech.
Such orders though have generated a mixed reaction among legal experts and human rights activists. They question the delicate balance between freedom of speech and judicial integrity.
“A blanket prohibition may lack legal justification”
Saroop Ijaz, Senior Counsel at Human Rights Watch, said that the courts have long deliberated on the freedom of speech rights for those accused, convicted, and absconding. A notable instance is Nawaz Sharif’s media ban by the Islamabad High Court.
He said, “While individuals in custody forfeit certain rights, such as freedom of movement and the ability to earn a livelihood, in cases of mere confinement without a conviction, courts typically lack the authority to restrict speech rights unless specific security concerns are present.”
Individuals in open court can usually address the media – “Their speech isn’t entirely unrestricted due to their custody status. They typically retain the fundamental right to communicate, such as with family, friends, engineers etc.”
In his opinion, it’s inappropriate to entirely bar interactions with journalists since one’s right to speak often equates to the right to be heard. “A blanket prohibition may lack legal justification,” he added.
He holds that authorities must evaluate each case individually, “they must judge if the accused attempting to influence their investigation through media appearances; should those accused of serious crimes have the right to address the public? Also, it is crucial to distinguish between the ability to communicate via letter and the prohibition of broadcasting that message via electronic channels.”
“It’s tantamount to media trail”
Journalist and YouTuber Fida Adeel welcomed the PHC’s decision that such steps are must to stop media trial of accused because it’s a matter of ‘shame’ for judicial system. “Every day, we see pictures of accused in newspapers who are yet to be convicted. It is tantamount to media trail – because if such suspects are acquitted, they are still defamed in the society,” he said.
Fida interviewed Abdul Wahid, also known as Raghu Bhai, who was imprisoned in Peshawar Central Jail for committing four murders. “During the interview, Raghu admitted to having committed the crime. He was later released on bail. Instances like these not only tarnish the reputation of the judiciary but also raise questions about the judicial system,” he said
“They raise questions in judge’s mind”
Advocate and human rights activist, Tariq Afghan demanded of a complete ban on interviews of accused in police or judicial custody – because, “such interviews don’t have any legal footings because its authenticity can be questioned wherein a forensic report of such video is mandatory.”
The accused, he said, should record the statement before judicial magistrate under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code. “These interviews create a mess because it doesn’t only affect trail but it can also manipulate and raises questions in judge’s mind, if he has already watched such interviews,” he added.