IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Original Jurisdiction)

C.M.A. No. ___________/2023

in
Suo Motu case No. 7/2017

Suo Motu action regarding Islamabad-Rawalpindi Sit-in/Dharna

CONCISE Statement along with Affidavit by Absar Alam Haider

Respectfully submits

1. That the instant Concise Statement along with Affidavit is being

filed pursuant to order, dated 28.09.2023, of this August Court, by

the Applicant-in-Person, in order ‘to disclose facts pertaining to this

matter’, to the extent within his direct knowledge, due to then

officiating as Chairman, PEMRA.

2. That in light of the immediately preceding and in so far as

understood by the Applicant-in-Person to the extent of PEMRA the

judgment in Suo Motu case No. 7/2017 records re:

a. Broadcasters:
i. Observations in Para 35: re: i) role of Channel 92, and ii)
PEMRA inaction/abdicating statutory duty;
ii. Declarations/Directions in Para 53(9): re: i) broadcasters
violating PEMRA laws be proceeded against;
b. Cable Operators:
i. Observations in Para 36: re: i) inaction/failing to protect
rights of licensees, and ii) interruption of broadcast in
particular areas;
ii. Declarations/Directions in Para 53(10): re: i) cable
operators stopping or interrupting broadcast of
licensees be proceeded against, and ii) if this was done
on the behest of others then PEMRA should report
those so directing the cable operators to the concerned
authorities;
c. Role of agencies:
i. Declarations/Directions in Para 53(11): re: i) agencies
must not exceed their mandate, ii) they cannot curtail
freedom of speech and expression, and iii) have no
authority to interfere with broadcasts or in management
of broadcasters;

3. That in so far as matters within his knowledge vis a vis sub-

paragraphs a, b & c above, the Applicant-in-Person avers as

follows:

a. That PEMRA officials were under pressure from serving

officers and the Applicant-in-Person received calls from the
 then DG(C) Major General Faiz Hamid and/or his
subordinates complaining that their requests were not
acceded to by the Applicant-in-Person. Specifically, the
Applicant-in-Person had been asked to: i) to take action
against Najam Sethi a prominent senior journalist; and ii) to
completely blackout Hussain Haqqani from TV Channels,
however, both illegal/unlawful demands remained unmet;
b. That General Faiz and/or his subordinates controlled TV
Channel policy through illegal/unlawful means by changing
their numbers and moving them at the tail end, when they
refused to follow instructions. The higher the channel number
the better the visibility and access due to various
technological and social reasons;
c. That in April 2017, the situation became untenable and
necessitated that the Applicant-in-Person: i) address in
writing the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Chief Justice
Mian Saqib Nisar and Chief of Army Staff General Qamar
Bajwa, attached herewith, to inform that due to grave threats
by unknown persons to PEMRA officials for not following
instructions fear had paralyzed the latter, ii) by way of press
conference make public a recorded telephonic conversation,
transcript attached herewith, of a serving agency officer
threatening a PEMRA official so as to guarantee and
safeguard the life and limb of said and all PEMRA official/s,
and iii) publically disclose how unsafe it had become for
PEMRA officials to perform their functions in accordance
with law and how a state agency, illegally/unlawfully,
created hurdles in smooth functioning of PEMRA;
d. That in May/June 2017 PEMRA invoked section 33A of the
Act to ensure all TV Channels are restored to their original
positions and re interruption of GEO and Dawn Applicant-in-
Person visited Lahore and Karachi with assistance of local
police: i) to ensure restoration of DAWN and Geo on their
original positions, and ii) visited cable operators offices and
punished violators;
e. That after suspension of Channel 92 on 25th November 2017,
during the Faizabad Dharna incident, pursuant to a complaint
 from the Ministry of Interior, General Faiz and/or his
subordinates called the Applicant-in-Person thrice: i)
questioning suspension thereof, ii) requesting restoration,
and iii) directing in the alternative all channels be shutdown.
As such, none of the illegal/unlawful demands were acceded
to;
f. That after some time also on 25th November 2017, the Minister
for Information Marriyum Aurangzeb contacted the
Applicant-in-Person: i) asking to shutdown all TV channels to
which the response was that the situation did not merit any
such drastic action/s and no such power existed with
PEMRA, ii) referring to section 5 of PEMRA Act she
demanded the same to which the response was that only a
written policy directive from the Federal Government could
be acted upon, & iii) the Applicant-in-Person emphasized: a)
the approval of the then Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan
Abbasi, to which the response was that she was in presence of
the Prime Minister and he relayed the same instructions
when spoken to i.e. all TV channels were to be shutdown due
to the situation then at hand, & b) that any such policy
directive must be in writing in response thereof a written
policy directive was soon received by PEMRA from the
Federal Government, and iv) in such circumstances all TV
Channels were shutdown during the Faizabad Dharna
incident;
g. That thereafter on 26th November 2017, PEMRA received a
directive from the Federal Government restoring operation of
all TV Channels previously shutdown during the Faizabad
Dharna incident;
h. That, therefore, there was a discernible pattern of interference
in the affairs of and functioning of PEMRA, an unnecessary
tussle wasting energy and scarce state resources in a battle
imposed in a patently unconstitutional and illegal manner - at
the behest of individual serving agency officer/s. As such,
only through constant vigilance was PEMRA able to counter
some such illegal/unlawful and threatening moves, protect by
 public disclosure the life and limb of its employees and yet
perform its functions, albeit in a limited manner;
i. That at the behest of individual serving agency officer/s
numerous other unnerving incidents took place during and
after the roughly two year tenure of the Applicant-in-Person:
i) it was subtly insinuated that the petition challenging the
appointment as Chairman, PEMRA, was a hanging sword
ready to fall at their command, ii) within a month of the
Faizabad Dharna incident and suspension of Channel 92 the
said petition began to be heard day to day and was accepted,
resultantly in December 2018 the Applicant-in-Person was
removed, iii) that ICA and eventually after five years the
CPLA were heard and dismissed on technicalities without
providing an opportunity of hearing to the Applicant-in-
Person, iv) both during and after serving as Chairman,
PEMRA, sedition and treason cases were filed against the
Applicant-in-Person in about 20 cities, while after removal
two more cases were filed in Dina near Jhelum – alleging
treason, sedition & anti state activities, and violating Article 6
of the Constitution, v) at various times during and after the
term at PEMRA, the Applicant-in-Person was target of media
trial/s with declarations of being a traitor and a gustakh,, vi)
later, the FIA registered cases against the Applicant-in-Person
under Cyber Crimes Act over tweets raising questions about
certain public servants’ handling of state affairs, vii) finally in
April 2021 the Applicant-in-Person was targeted in an
assassination attempt which failed only due to the grace of
the Almighty, viii) throughout after removal as Chairman,
PEMRA, arrangements were made such that the Applicant-
in-Person was not allowed to appear on any TV Channel or
write/publish in any newspaper and was forcibly made to
remain unemployed, and ix) therefore, a full spectrum purge
of the Applicant-in-Person was sought and attempted;
j. That only such details as related to the matter are being
enumerated, in order, to stay within the confines laid out by
this August Court, however, the same patents a pattern of
suffering to be endured when one crosses red lines set by
 individual serving agency officer/s, as did the Applicant-in-
Person;

4. That the facts enumerated in paragraph 3 supra have been sworn

through affidavit, since the same are facts pertaining to this matter

and of public importance and required to be brought upon the

record of this August Court, in order, to do complete justice in the

titled matter;

5. That it is in the interest of justice that the instant concise statement

and sworn affidavit may be brought upon record.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the concise statement and
sworn affidavit may be brought upon record.