PTA Incapable to Trace Audio Leak Source Amid Legal Showdown

The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) informed the Islamabad High Court on Wednesday that it is not capable of identifying the individual responsible for the audio leak on social media. The PTA provided clarification regarding inquiries made during the hearing of petitions submitted by Najamus Saqib, the son of former Chief Justice Saqib Nisar, and Bushra Bibi, the spouse of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. According to PTA, the relevant laws do not grant it the authority to identify the origin of the alleged audio leak.

Najamus Saqib had challenged parliamentary proceedings on allegations of seeking bribes from a candidate for the Punjab Assembly. Similarly, Bushra Bibi challenged the ongoing investigation concerning her alleged conversation with Zulfi Bukhari, a former aide to the prime minister at the time, concerning the trade of Toshakhana gifts.

During a prior hearing, Justice Babar Sattar of the Islamabad High Court expressed reservations regarding electronic surveillance and questioned the competent authority for making decisions to record phone calls.  The PTA responded by stating that it has not authorized listening to third-party conversations by anyone.

The PTA cited Section 20 (malicious code) of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) of 2016 in a report submitted to the court. This provision permits an individual who has been wronged to petition the authority for the blocking of content that is detrimental to their reputation or privacy. In addition, the law grants the PTA the authority to remove such material for reasons of public order, decency, morality, security, defense, Islam, security, or court contempt.

The PTA emphasized that the Removal and Blocking of Unlawful Online Content (Procedure, Oversight, and Safeguard) Rules 2021, which fall under PECA, regulate the process of removing and blocking unlawful content. Complaints filed under these rules undergo analysis and approval, followed by steps to remove the content through social media operators or technical actions against their services.

Official channels between social media operators and regulators are utilized to process requests, according to the PTA; however, such requests must adhere to the community guidelines established by the operators. Requests that fail to adhere to these guidelines are subject to rejection. In relation to technical measures, the PTA stated that while it is possible to monitor internet traffic in order to block content, it is limited due to technological constraints.

Section 29 (retention of traffic data) of PECA assigns the establishment of an investigation agency to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) through its Cyber Crime Wing. Section 51 of PECA grants the federal government the power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act, as per the PTA’s conclusion.

The previous hearing also had a report from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). In it, it stressed that it does not get involved with intelligence agencies and keeps a professional distance from them, telling them to follow the Constitution and the law. The investigation into the audio disclosures was comprehensively documented in the report, which encompassed the establishment of an inquiry commission presided over by Justice Qazi Faez Isa and a high-powered committee.

The PMO clarified that it does not interfere with the sensitive day-to-day working of intelligence agencies, maintaining its political-administrative role. The report emphasized the legislative frameworks that grant agencies the authority to conduct surveillance on civilians, including the Telegraph Act of 1885, the Investigation for Fair Trial Act of 2013, and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act of 2016.

In conclusion, the principal secretary to the prime minister suggested that the court decide on the matter as deemed appropriate, leaving the resolution of the complex issues surrounding the alleged audio leaks in the hands of the judiciary.

ALSO READ: Audio Leaks Case: IHC Seeks Detailed Rejoinder Regarding Phone Call Recordings