The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday directed the interior ministry to review its findings on the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) request to deport US blogger Cynthia Dawn Ritchie.
The directives were issued by IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah.
At the outset of proceedings, petitioner’s counsel Latif Khosa adopted the stance that the court order had not been implemented.
“The interior secretary had not applied his mind. An inquiry is pending before the FIA against Cynthia Ritchie. Despite not being a voter, Cynthia is getting involved in political matters,” he said.
The IHC CJ observed that the accusations hurled by the US blogger were of serious nature.
Chief Justice Minallah remarked that a reply had been submitted that she was working on the projects of the ISPR and K-P government.
The judge inquired how these projects were given to the US blogger and whether the public funds were being spent in a transparent manner.
“A great deal of irresponsibility has been shown. What sort of a governance is this? It is the responsibility of the state to carry out transparent investigation on the accusations,” he said.
Additional Attorney General Tariq Khokhar requested the court to grant time to seek directions from the government.
The court adjourned the hearing of these case until August 4.
Petitioner Chaudhry Iftikhar had challenged Cynthia’s long stay in Pakistan after the expiry of her business visa in March and alleged involvement in a media campaign against leaders of the opposition party.
According to the petition, her business visa expired on March 2, 2020 and she was not entitled to stay in Pakistan afterwards.
The petitioner referred to various activities of the respondent and her media statements and social media posts, which according to him were derogatory and objectionable.
According to the Interior Ministry’s report, “Cynthia D. Ritchie denied all the allegations against her, she stated that her visa expired on March 2, 2020 and she submitted an application before the date of expiry.”
It further said that the matter related to her social media post was already sub judice and being probed by the FIA under Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016.
However, the ministry also claimed that it had not received any adverse report on the activities of the respondent on social media as being alleged by the petitioner and therefore no action by the ministry was required at this stage.
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
1732503274-0/Untitled-design-(43)1732503274-0-405x300.webp "article")
1732501636-0/Untitled-design-(42)1732501636-0-165x106.webp "article")
1732498967-0/Outer-Banks--(1)1732498967-0-165x106.webp "article")
1732086766-0/BeFunky-collage-(74)1732086766-0-165x106.webp "article")
I am sorry to note, that the IHC got involved in this politicised case. If the person is defined, as alleged, then the remedy is not with the High Court, but through civil courts. One does not have to be a registered voter, to express his or her views on the political landscape of the country. It is settled in the law of defamation, that the deceased person, cannot be defined. The hurt caused to the party members, is not actionable in the first place and secondly, it is a defence that the allegations levied are true. It is the government's prerogative to issue visas to anyone, and they can condone any delays in which the Visa had not been applied for or extension approved.