Payment of fine to victims’ families: IHC turns down defence ministry’s, others’ appeals

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), Wednesday, turned down the Ministry of Defense and others’ appeals against payment of fine to the victim families in the missing persons case.

The IHC division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb on Wednesday heard intra-court appeals (ICA) of ministries of Defense, Interior and Islamabad district administration challenging the verdict of a single bench in an enforced disappearance case of Sajid Mahmood and the cases of some other missing persons including Mudassir Naro, Umer Abdullah and others.

The bench dismissed the ICAs by terming the same as non-maintainable.

In the ICA, the ministries and local administration have challenged the judgment which holds certain government functionaries responsible for the non-recovery of missing persons and ordered the state to pay a monthly compensation stipend to the victim families.

During the hearing, the additional attorney general sought some time. However, the bench expressed its displeasure over it. Justice Miangul Hassan observed that these ICAs have been pending before the IHC for many years. He said that the Court has been granting time since many years, but no progress is being made in this matter.

Justice Aamer remarked that they had issued stay order after the assurance that the authorities making efforts for the recovery of missing persons, but did nothing.

Mahera Sajid’s counsel Barrister Umer Ijaz Gillani argued that the appeals in habeas corpus matters cannot be filed.

Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Interior and Islamabad’s district administration moved the ICA challenging Justice Athar Minallah’s July 11, 2018 verdict in which he wrote that “enforced disappearance is one of the most cruel and inhuman acts and categorised as a crime against humanity.”

In the said judgment, Justice Minallah had maintained that the act of enforced disappearance may also attract provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and for the first time in Pakistan’s history penalised a retired general and several civilian officials in the case of a missing person.

The IHC held that it is the duty of the Special Branch, Intelligence Bureau, Inter-Services Intelligence and Military Intelligence to collect information and promptly report to the concerned functionaries regarding any incident of abduction of a citizen having the characteristics of an “enforced disappearance” and to take effective measures in tracing the whereabouts of the victim. It noted that these functionaries of the State are part of the JIT constituted under the Regulations. In case of failure in fulfilling this duty, the respective Sector Commanders shall expose themselves to being accountable and proceeded against.

The court gave this verdict in the case of a missing person Sajid Mehmood - an IT expert and a resident of F-10 missing since March 2016. His wife had filed a petition for the recovery of her husband. She also had submitted applications seeking allowance on account of monthly household expenses from the federal government till her husband is recovered.

Beside safe recovery of her husband, Mahera had demanded that the federal government should be held liable for gross negligence in discharging its duty to protect the liberty of her husband and as a consequence, must pay her and her daughters’ monthly maintenance.

Apart from holding them responsible, Justice Minallah had later also imposed a cost of Rs100,000 each on the Ministry of Defence Secretary Lt Gen (retired) Zamir ul Hassan Shah, Islamabad Chief Commissioner Zulfiqar Haider, Inspector General of Police Khalid Khattak, and District Magistrate Mushtaq Ahmed. Costs of Rs300,000 were also imposed on Inspector Qaiser Niaz, who was the In-charge of Shalimar Police Station when Mehmood was abducted.

In the ICA, the state through Advocate General Islamabad contended whether the single bench was right in accepting the petition as it was not maintainable without impleading the government or the state as respondents in the case.

He also questioned that how the court was justified in imposing a fine on the heads of state functionaries and SHO in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

In the chief commissioner and deputy commissioner’s appeal, their counsel said that the appellants were not impleaded as a party in the petition and no relief whatsoever was claimed against the petitioners. Therefore, the appellants prayed to the court to nullify the verdict of the single bench of IHC.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024