RAWALPINDI: A court directed the Ministry of Interior and intelligence agencies to respond to a petition filed by the relatives of 11 missing persons against their alleged detention by security agencies.
Justice Sagheer Qadri of the Lahore High Court (LHC) Rawalpindi Bench on Wednesday directed the government’s lawyer Baber Ali to submit his comments by March 17.
Atiqur Rehman, brother of Syed Abdul Saboor, Syed Abdul Majid and Syed Abdul Basit, and eight others filed a habeas corpus petition in the LHC through their counsel Ilyas Siddiqui against the alleged detention of 11 persons by intelligence agencies last May after a court ordered their release from Adiyala Jail.
Naming the interior secretary, heads of intelligences agencies, and the superintendent and deputy superintendent of Adiyala Jail as respondents, the defence lawyer maintained that the men had been charged and acquitted in terrorism cases by an Anti Terrorism Court (ATC), despite which they were picked up by intelligence agencies from the jail in May.
In December, a lawyer representing the Inter Services Intelligence and Military Intelligence told the Supreme Court that the 11 men were in their custody and would be tried under the Army Act for carrying out suicide attacks on military installations.
The 11 missing persons — Dr Niaz Ahmed, Mazharul Haq, Shafiqur Rehman, Mohammad Aamir, Syed Abdul Majid, Abdul Basit, Syed Abdul Saboor, Shafique Ahmed, Saeed Arab, Gul Roze and Tehseenullah, went missing from Adiyala Jail on May 28, 2010, after their release was ordered.
The men were acquitted in four terrorism cases by a trial court last April. They were accused of plotting a rocket attack on Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, Kamra, firing an anti-aircraft missile on a plane carrying Pervez Musharraf, carrying out suicide attacks on an intelligence agency’s bus in Rawalpindi and attacking the main entrance of GHQ.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 3rd, 2011.
COMMENTS (1)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ