ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan, Tuesday, approached the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against possible ‘handing over of his custody to the army authorities’.
The PTI founder filed the petition through advocate Uzair Karamat Bhandari and cited the Federation of Pakistan through secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, secretary Ministry of Interior, secretary Ministry of Defence, inspector general of police Islamabad, chief secretary Punjab, inspector general of police Punjab, and superintendent Adiala Jail, Rawalpindi as respondents.
Bhandari stated that the petitioner filed a number of cases, wherein, the Lahore High Court (LHC) adjudicated upon the legality of the orders passed for his physical remand in connection with cases regarding the incidents of 9 and 10 May 2023 and a Division Bench, through order dated 25 July 2024 passed in Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi v. Special Judge, ATC and others, Criminal Revision No 4566l of 2024, declared that the remand of the petitioner in relation to offences allegedly committed on 9 and 10 May 2023 to be unlawful inter alia on the basis of insufficient evidence against him.
He added that the petitioner has now either been granted bail, or his physical remand has been set aside, in all cases against him in relation to the events of 9 and 10 May 2023.
The counsel further said that the instant petition has been necessitated on account of certain developments subsequent to the aforesaid order of the LHC and because of a very disturbing piece of information placed in the public domain which, if acted upon, has the capacity to further undermine the petitioner’s fundamental rights.
“Certain observations made by the Lahore High Court during the hearing of the said matters and in the order passed therein had the effect of creating a sense of panic in the ranks of those who are desperate to keep the petitioner behind bars on one pretext or the other,” said the petitioner.
He maintained that accordingly, reports have been circulating on television, print and social media that the petitioner will be shifted to the custody of army authorities in connection with the cases regarding the events of 9 and 10 May 2023. Many observers and commentators have expressed the view that the army authorities will take the petitioner into custody and try him before a court martial.
In fact, the petitioner had prior to that expressed the same apprehension which was widely reported in the media. It appears that implementation of those plans has been accelerated because of the proceedings in the remand case.
The petition also stated, “That a few weeks ago, a retired senior army officer was taken into military custody. It has been widely speculated and reported in the media that he will be made an approver against the petitioner in cases pertaining to 9 and 10 May 2023 and the petitioner be transferred to military custody on this basis.”
He argued that the apprehensions of the petitioner have been given credence inter alia by a statement made by Barrister Aqeel Malik, the federal government’s spokesperson for legal affairs, on a television show on 23 August 2024, stating that the petitioner could “absolutely” be tried in a military court, and that the provisions of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, were applicable to him.
Similarly, the Federal Law Minister, Azam Nazeer Tarar, has stated that the final decision to refer the petitioner’s cases to a military court will be taken by the Punjab government (which, it seems, has for the time being denied such a move). However, the referral to Punjab is a red-herring and totally deceptive: previously, such decision was taken by the federal government, which can proceed independently.
The petitioner’s counsel added, “It will be a complete travesty of justice and due process if the army authorities are able to obtain custody of the petitioner. It will be completely against the law declared by a 3-member bench of the Supreme Court in Jawwad S. Khawaja v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2024S C 337. In that case, the Supreme Court held that trial of civilians through courts martial was unconstitutional.”
Therefore, he prayed to the court that the respondents be directed to ensure that the custody of the petitioner be retained in civilian hands and subject to the jurisdiction of civilian courts and the respondents be restrained from handing over the custody of the petitioner to army authorities.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.