PHOTO: REUTERS
During the hearing, parties completed their arguments before a two-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Agha Faisal.
Sindh Advocate General Salman Talibuddin maintained before the court that the “plea was filed as part of a conspiracy by the police officials to deride the Sindh government.” He questioned as to how a lawyer gained access to sensitive documents of the police department, referring to the submission of letters exchanged between the police and the provincial government as well as other important documents by the petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Faisal Siddiqui, to the court.
In response, the petitioner said that the documents were provided by unidentified persons, whom he termed “unidentified heroes.”
Another major reshuffle jolts police department
“It seems like the ‘unidentified heroes’ are present in Sindh IGP’s office,” the advocate general shot back, responding to the petitioner’s claim.
At this, the petitioner’s counsel said that according to the Sindh government, the province’s chief minister has the authority to surrender the services of the officials of the Sindh police to the Centre. “But under which law is he authorised to dismiss the officials?” he questioned.
He claimed that the IGP was being incapacitated and an “empire was being set up here [in Sindh].”
The counsel for the petitioner informed the court that Sindh IGP said he came to know about the transfer of the two officials via media, as had happened previously when former inspector general of Sindh Police AD Khawaja was transferred. However, the notification issued for surrendering Khawaja’s services to the federal government was later nullified by the court, added Siddiqui.
He said that the Sindh government had filed a plea seeking the review of decisions made regarding the appointments and transfers of officials in Sindh Police. At this, the court had directed the provincial government to devise rules in this regard, but instead an act was formulated, he contended.
Siddiqui said that the Sindh government has claimed that Rind’s services were surrendered to the Centre on October 15, 2019. Whereas, Sindh IGP had raised objection over the transfer on December 10, he added. Refuting the government claim, the counsel said, one may question “whether the IGP was asleep all this while [between October 15 and December 10], but in fact, he had notified [the relevant authorities] of his reservations just 15 days after Rind’s services were surrendered to the federal government.”
The petitioner’s counsel further criticised the provincial government for misquoting Sindh IGP and asserting that he himself had stated that Rind was being transferred. Refuting this claim, he said that the IGP hadn’t written any letter seeking Rind’s transfer.
“[Moreover], the Sindh government claims that Sindh IGP had complained about Rind’s non-professional attitude,” he said, adding that the provincial government had also labelled Dr Ahmed as an “incompetent official.”
The Punjab government had sent a requisition for Dr Ahmed on December 3 and the Sindh government was quick to comply, he criticised the latter.
Countering Siddiqui’s arguments, Sindh advocate general challenged the maintainability of the plea seeking a stay order on the officials’ transfer, on grounds that Rind and Dr Ahmed have not been nominated as parties in the petition.
Following this, he raised various questions. “How did the petitioner get hold of the letters [exchanged between the police and the Sindh government]? All these documents have been stamped by the police department,” he said.
Later, Siddiqui raised objections over the submission of additional documents by the advocate general.
At this, the advocate general said that the documents were in fact reports about police officials, released by sensitive agencies. He then levelled multiple accusations against Dr Ahmed, alleging that he was responsible for the release of “fake data about accused on the run,” had arrested 26 accused on the run but misreported a greater number and held a press conference, violating the police’s code of conduct. He further said the chief minister too had received a complaint regarding the press conference.
The advocate general claimed that Sindh IGP had complete knowledge of Rind and Dr Ahmed’s conduct and transfers, adding that the petitioner was not an affected party in the case but instead “a politician who had vested interests [in the matter].”
Following the completion of arguments by both the parties, the court directed them to submit written arguments and reserved the verdict on the plea.
Request denied
The same bench also denied the petitioner’s request to nominate Sindh governor as a party in a plea challenging the Sindh Universities Amendment Act, 2018.
Elderly police officials in Punjab request transfers
Contending the act, the plea maintains that Sindh governor holds the seat of the vice-chancellor of the province’s varsities but the control of the universities has been transferred to the chief minister under the act. It portends that the development will result in public universities being ruined the same way the public schools have been ruined in Sindh.
On this argument the basis of his appeal, the petitioner moved the court to make the governor a party in the plea. The court, however, denied his request, stating that he had challenged the law and there was no need to nominate Sindh governor as a party in the petition.
Concluding the hearing, the court directed the parties to come prepared at the next hearing, on January 28.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 25th, 2019.
1732697578-0/Untitled-design-(5)1732697578-0-270x192.webp "miss aini debuts as karachi s first ai teacher robot")
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ