Raymond Davis saga: LHC seeks explanation from Punjab govt

Govt had been directed to include Davis’ name on ECL.


Express April 16, 2011

LAHORE:


The Lahore High Court on Friday once again issued notices to the federal and Punjab governments for April 26, on a petition challenging the removal of Raymond Davis’ name from the Exit Control List (ECL), allegedly, without obtaining the consent of the LHC which had earlier ordered it.


Barrister Javed Iqbal Jaffree filed the petition requesting the court to seek an explanation from the federal law ministry, Chief Minister Punjab Shahbaz Sharif, Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Yousaf Aujla and others, for allowing Davis to leave the country despite the LHC’s restraining orders.

He submitted that the LHC had directed the government to include the name of Raymond Allen Davis in the ECL and that the court was assured by a law officer and the concerned ministry that the same had been implemented.

The petitioner submitted that upon Davis’ release, the LHC order was in place as the court had not suspended or withdrawn its order.

The petitioner contended that in violation of the court’s orders, Davis was allowed to leave the country. However, the Punjab chief minister claimed that he was not aware of all these developments, he said.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 16th,  2011.

COMMENTS (3)

Pakistani | 10 years ago | Reply @Rahim: Too late to catch the killer but maybe not to catch his releasers and will prevent more US agents from escaping. This is a constructive measure.
humayun ILAHI | 10 years ago | Reply The judiciary has always taken a back seat.There are too many skeletons in different closets. In the DAVIS case PAKISTANIS must realise that every body was following orders. If they want to be the master of their destiny they should adopt a different model of development. LEARn frm the chinese but then We want the easy way out .
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

E-Publications

Most Read