Hizb activist missing: Sensitive agencies’ officials deny hand

A petition has been filed in the IHC pointing fingers at the security agencies for their involvement in the incident.

Obaid Abbasi August 17, 2011


Officials from security agencies on Tuesday denied their involvement in enforced disappearance of another Hizbut Tahrir activist. Naveed Mukhtar has filed a petition in the Islamabad High Court seeking the recovery of his brother, Dr Muhammad Waheed, pointing fingers at the security agencies for their involvement in the incident.

The counsel for the petitioner maintained that on August 9, he along with his brother Dr Waheed were picked up by the officials of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Military Intelligence (MI) from Rahim Yar Khan and forcibly taken away in a car. However after 30 minutes of driving they dropped Naveed Mukhtar at a deserted place.

During the course of hearing, Commander Shahbaz Hussain representing Ministry of Defence and Major Tahir Mehmood representing Military Intelligence (MI) appeared before the court. On their behalf, Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Muhammad Abid Raja told the court that the missing activist was not in the custody of the agencies.

He argued that Islamabad High Court (IHC) has no jurisdiction and the petition should have been filed in the Lahore High Court (LHC). He informed the court that the IHC chief justice had also sent the case of other missing activist to the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances and this matter should also be clubbed with other such cases.

He further informed the court, IHC has already sought a comment from ISI on similar petitions till September 26.

Meanwhile, the petitioner’s counsel contended that this is a separate matter and should be dealt with separately.

After the hearing Justice Riaz Ahmed Khan directed DAG to submit counter affidavit on behalf of intelligence agencies within two weeks.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 17th, 2011.


Abdul Jabbar | 10 years ago | Reply

Look at the delay tactics by those defending ISI and MI saying that the case should be lumped with others and that IHC has no jurisdiction in these cases. The Judiciary should not be told what is in their jurisdiction or not and the defence should deal with their case and leave the legal status to the courts to decide.

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


Most Read