ISLAMABAD: Justice Babar Sattar of Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday termed the Federal Investigation Agency`s (FIA) report unsatisfactory, filed in the case against KP Director Anti-Corruption Siddique Anjum and others, accused of orchestrating a social media campaign targeting District and Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar.

Humayun Dilawar, on August 5, 2023, convicted former prime minister Imran Khan on a complaint filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for concealing the details of Toshakhana from his assets declaration and sentenced him to three years in prison.

Last year, when the Toshakhana case was transferred to the court of judge Dilawar from the accountability court in the light of amendments in the National Accountability Ordinance, the KP government lodged the FIR in a land-related matter against the judge and his family and secured their arrest warrants.

The KP`s AntiCorruption Establishment also released a copy of the arrest warrants on social media. As a result, the Cyber Crimes Wing of the FIA lodged the FIR against the Chief Minister`s advisor and officials of the KP government.

The FIA registered the case against retired Brig Mussadiq Abbasi, ACE KP officials, and a vlogger for allegedly attempting to discredit the judge, who had previously convicted former prime minister Imran Khan on the complaint of the Election Commission of Pakistan for concealing details of Toshakhana gifts in his assets declaration.

The FIR followed a September 9, 2024, case filed by the ACE against Judge Dilawar and his family in a land dispute case, leading to warrants issued by a judicial magistrate the same day.

As per the record related to the dispute, Judge Dilawar`s family acquired a piece of land in Bannu in 1970 and the work on a housing project on the land legally progressed under the PTI government.

However, after former prime minister Imran Khan was convicted by Judge Dilawar in the Toshakhana case, the family reportedly faced intimidation, which allegedly intensified under the PTI`sadministration following the February 8 elections.

Justice Sattar was hearing the petition filed by ACE Director Siddique Anjum.

Earlier in January, Justice Sattar, hearing the petition, issued the stay order against the proceeding initiated against Anjum and observed prima facie abuse of authority in the registration of the FIR, as his counsel, Ali Azim Afridi, claimed it was retaliation and sought a report from the FIA.

As Justice Sattar resumed the hearing on Monday, the FIA report was placed before him. The judge termed the FIA`s report `unsatisfactory` and ordered it to be resubmitted, while also upholding a stay order to halt proceedingsin the trialcourt.

The FIA`s legal counsel informed the court that a report had been submitted by the FIA director general. However, the petitioner`s counsel, representing Siddique Anjum, pointed out that the report actually supported their stance.

According to the FIA`s own findings, a social media campaign had indeed been launched against Judge Dilawar.

Justice Sattar sharply criticised the report`s tone and format, questioning whether the FIA understood proper judicial procedure. He also noted the inconsistency in the origin of the complaint, asking, `Was any complaint filed by the judge himself?` The FIA said the judge`s nephew had submitted the complaint.

`The entire report is based on the judge`s grievances. How can someone else file a complaint on behalf of a judge?` the judge remarked. He further questioned the FIA`s selective efficiency, noting that while the agency had failed to identify culprits in similar campaigns against other high court judges, it appeared to have full knowledge in this particular case, despite the judge not even filing a complaint.

Justice Sattar also addressed claims of political pressure made by coaccused individuals, questioning how the defence planned to justify these allegations. The petitioner`s lawyer responded that the co-accused had not made any such statement before the magistrate, despite FIA claims. The court ordered the FIA to submit a revised report and adjourned the hearing until May 19.