ISLAMABAD:
Despite Attorney General for Pakistan’s (AGP) request, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to issue a restraining order regarding the release of the people who were accused of murdering and kidnapping American journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002.
A three-judge bench that was hearing the Sindh government’s appeal against the Sindh High Court’s (SHC) December 24 order to release the accused, however, extended the detention of all accused persons for one day till today [Tuesday].
The bench, presided over by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, also summoned all records of the case from the SHC. During the hearing, the bench also rejected the plea of the counsel for the accused to adjourn the case for a week in view of the illness of the lead counsel.
Justice Bandial said the case could not be adjourned till the requested date. “In this case, not only the accused persons but also the government is in the dock,” he added.
AGP Khalid Javed Khan, appearing before the bench, stated that the SHC passed the December 24 order without issuing him a notice and quoted that fact as a reason for suspension of the order. He also requested the bench to suspend the SHC judgment “as this case has international implications”.
Read more: SC orders release of Daniel Pearl murder case accused
However, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah – a member of the bench – said the court could not determine whether or not a notice was not given to the AGP without examining the SHC's orders sheet.
"We are not suspending the SHC order without seeing the order sheet," said Justice Bandial. He later adjourned the hearing of the case till Tuesday [today].
The same bench on January 25 issued notices to the AGP and all advocate generals for legal assistance in the matter. During the last hearing, Sindh Advocate General Suleman Talibuddin had claimed that the SHC’s December 24 release order did not contain detailed reasons.
“One of the findings recorded by the [SHC] short order is that the respondents [accused persons] are not ‘enemy aliens’ within the meaning of Article 10 (9) of the Constitution. Meaning of this term is hitherto judicially unexplained,” Talibuddin said.
The Sindh government claimed that the accused persons fall in the category of “enemy aliens”.
It told the SC bench that they had placed material as proof on record of the SHC as justification but the same was rejected. “Now the Sindh government has requested the bench to pronounce authoritative judgment on the law and facts,” said the order-sheet issued by the Justice Bandial bench.
Sindh AG said the SHC in its short order had barred the Sindh government from exercising its authority under Article 10 except with the permission of the court. He said the same constitutional provision authorizes the provincial government to pass preventive detention of an individual.
The AGP contended that the jurisdiction reserved to itself by the SHC is vested by the Constitution in the appropriate review board. As a result the petitioner government has been divested of its powers conferred by the Constitution and regulated by the law, he had stated.
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