The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday disposed of the writ petition, seeking placement of former president Pervez Musharraf's name along with others on the exit control list (ECL) for their alleged involvement in Lal Masjid killings.
The single-member bench of the court, comprising Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Aslam, observed let the detailed judgement of the Supreme Court in Lal Masjid suo moto be issued first as the court could not give relief on those issues, which had already been addressed by the Supreme Court. Lawyer for the petitioner Khwaja Azhar argued that the petition differed from the Supreme Court petition on several counts.
The counsel argued the respondents were involved in the killing of Lal Masjid's former Naib Khateeb Abdur Rasheed Ghazi, his mother and hundreds of students of Jamia Hafsa. Chairman of Defence Human Rights Organisation, Kahlid Khwaja had filed the petition, making Pervez Musharraf, former interior minister Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, General Tariq Majeed, former Deputy Commissioner of Islamabad Muhammad Ali, Chief Commissioner and former Inspector General of Islamabad as respondents.
The counsel claimed that the former president along with other respondents could flee the country, therefore, their names should be placed on the ECL. The Chief Justice observed as there was no case registered against the respondents so their names could not be placed in the ECL. The counsel said that an attempt was made to register FIR against these people at Aabpara police station, but the SHO had refused.
Later, he took the matter to the District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad, who also refused to hear the case. At that, the Chief Justice asked the petitioner's counsel to be patient till the issuance of detailed judgement by the apex court.
Earlier, Kahlid Khwaja had filed an application in the court on the same issue, but the registrar office of the court had returned the application after raising objections. Kahlid Khwaja then filed a proper petition in the court after removing the objections, which the court had accepted for hearing.
Comments
Comments are closed.