By challenging in the Supreme Court the decision of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) regarding special internment centres, the government may have invited a "great problem", as warned by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa in Friday's proceedings of the case. It may be recalled that last month a division bench of the PHC had declared as ultra vires of the Constitution promulgation of the Action in Aid of Civil Power Ordinance, 2019, and continuation of similar laws in the erstwhile FATA and PATA that authorised armed forces to detain an individual at anytime anywhere without assigning any reason, and without producing suspects before a court of law. The court had directed the provincial home secretary to notify all the internment centres as sub-jails ordering the KP inspector general of prisons to take control of all such jails.
Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Anwar Mansoor seemed to have no satisfactory answer to the apex court's query as to what was the justification for the ordinance and to have validated the previous laws through Parliament unless, as the CJ observed, it was an implied acceptance that the previous regulations were not in accordance with the law. The AGP though tried to rationalize the internment centres, saying the inmates are treated in a humane manner. And that medical facilities, clothing, food, and religious teachings are imparted to them, adding that the KP prison rules are applicable to these centres. He also claimed that family members can visit them on the condition they would not disclose information to others. If any of this is true, there should be no need for secrecy. Defending the indefensible the AGP resorted to the 'extraordinary situations required extraordinary measures' argument, contending that those interned had fought with the Pakistan Army. In other words, internees have no rights since they took up arms against the state. That may be a valid allegation in some cases, but not all. In any event, that should not take away their right to due process. It is pertinent to recall here the case of John Philip Walker Lindh, an American captured during US invasion of Afghanistan along with many others, who were declared 'enemy combatants' and shipped to the infamous Guantanamo Bay prisons where they sat in an open-ended legal limbo. But although Lindh had taken up arms against his state, he was shifted to the US and brought to trial, and sentenced to 20 years in prison (earlier this year he was allowed a three-year period of supervised release). The point of it is that all citizens, regardless of the nature of their offense, have a right to a fair trial. Justice Umar Ata Bandial raised that all important issue when he observed that people who are disobedient to the state can be detained, but the question is whether they can be deprived of their fundamental rights?
The law of the land ordains that all suspects must be duly charged and produced before competent courts of law. Those who are not charged with any offence should be released on the lapse of 90-day preventive detention period. Keeping citizens incarcerated in secret prisons, without informing their families about their whereabouts, and without fair trial is tantamount to denial of their constitutional rights, and must be shunned under all circumstances.
Comments
Comments are closed.