Adiala’s missing prisoners not innocent, will be tried under tribal laws, SC told
ISI, MI lawyer says internment orders being withdrawn, detainees attacked army convoys
“You may try to penalise for the facts you have against them for being involved in acts of terrorism but you cannot do so by violating the due process of law,” says CJ. PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
The lawyer representing Pakistan’s two secret agencies on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that the seven missing men of the Adiala Jail detained in FATA would be tried under the tribal laws as their internment orders were being withdrawn.
Lawyer for the Inter-Services Intelligence and Military Intelligence, Advocate Raja Irshad, said that the men – who allegedly went missing from Adiala Jail in 2010 – would be tried under the relevant laws given that they were arrested from the restive areas of FATA for attacking army convoys.
He said they would be tried under the Regulations Action in Aid of Civil Powers 2011, regulatory laws applicable for FATA.
He submitted a report claiming confidentiality and said the detained men were not innocent. The governor had decided to withdraw the internment orders detaining the seven men in Parachinar as they would be tried under the regulation laws. “These men were acquitted by the Rawalpindi anti-terrorism court in 2009 owing to poor prosecution,” said the lawyer when asked by the three-member bench how could they be kept in internment centres without concrete reason if they had been acquitted.
“You may try to penalise for the facts you have against them for being involved in acts of terrorism but you cannot do so by violating the due process of law,” observed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed observed that FATA Secretary Jamal Nasir, who is the authority in the case, had not conveyed to the court that the internment orders were being withdrawn and the detained men would be tried under tribal laws.
Before deferring the hearing till March 20, the bench heard at length the arguments of Advocate Tariq Asad, representing the men, on the issue of whether or not the apex court could assert its territorial jurisdiction in the tribal areas.
Citing different orders from the past, the defence lawyer tried to convince the bench that if fundamental rights such as life and liberty were at stake, the Supreme Court could assume its jurisdiction in FATA.
He contended the 11 men were picked up allegedly from Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi by the agencies before they were released and then taken to FATA. Four of the 11 had already died as they had been kept in the custody of the agencies for 20 months without trial.
Challenging the legality of tribal laws
Separately, the bench took up an identical petition challenging the legality of the 2011 regulatory laws for FATA. The petition was moved by Professor Ibrahim, a former senator of the Jamaat-e-Islami in 2011.
“Do you think there is total peace in the country and particularly in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa? There are no miscreants in FATA that needed to be controlled by the armed forces?” remarked Chief Justice Chaudhry after reading a paragraph from the petition containing uncalled-for remarks about the Pakistan Army’s action in the restive areas.
“The petitioner, being a legislator, should have raised his voice in the Senate against the regulatory laws for FATA if he had any reservations,” the chief justice stated.
The petitioner contended that the federal government had no authority to legislate for FATA if the areas were not covered by the constitution of the country.
Meanwhile, Advocate Asad asked the chief justice to form a larger bench to decide the petition against the 2011 regulations for FATA. His request was turned down by the chief justice, saying that the three-member bench should be considered a larger bench.
The lawyer representing Pakistan’s two secret agencies on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that the seven missing men of the Adiala Jail detained in FATA would be tried under the tribal laws as their internment orders were being withdrawn.
Lawyer for the Inter-Services Intelligence and Military Intelligence, Advocate Raja Irshad, said that the men – who allegedly went missing from Adiala Jail in 2010 – would be tried under the relevant laws given that they were arrested from the restive areas of FATA for attacking army convoys.
He said they would be tried under the Regulations Action in Aid of Civil Powers 2011, regulatory laws applicable for FATA.
He submitted a report claiming confidentiality and said the detained men were not innocent. The governor had decided to withdraw the internment orders detaining the seven men in Parachinar as they would be tried under the regulation laws. “These men were acquitted by the Rawalpindi anti-terrorism court in 2009 owing to poor prosecution,” said the lawyer when asked by the three-member bench how could they be kept in internment centres without concrete reason if they had been acquitted.
“You may try to penalise for the facts you have against them for being involved in acts of terrorism but you cannot do so by violating the due process of law,” observed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed observed that FATA Secretary Jamal Nasir, who is the authority in the case, had not conveyed to the court that the internment orders were being withdrawn and the detained men would be tried under tribal laws.
Before deferring the hearing till March 20, the bench heard at length the arguments of Advocate Tariq Asad, representing the men, on the issue of whether or not the apex court could assert its territorial jurisdiction in the tribal areas.
Citing different orders from the past, the defence lawyer tried to convince the bench that if fundamental rights such as life and liberty were at stake, the Supreme Court could assume its jurisdiction in FATA.
He contended the 11 men were picked up allegedly from Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi by the agencies before they were released and then taken to FATA. Four of the 11 had already died as they had been kept in the custody of the agencies for 20 months without trial.
Challenging the legality of tribal laws
Separately, the bench took up an identical petition challenging the legality of the 2011 regulatory laws for FATA. The petition was moved by Professor Ibrahim, a former senator of the Jamaat-e-Islami in 2011.
“Do you think there is total peace in the country and particularly in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa? There are no miscreants in FATA that needed to be controlled by the armed forces?” remarked Chief Justice Chaudhry after reading a paragraph from the petition containing uncalled-for remarks about the Pakistan Army’s action in the restive areas.
“The petitioner, being a legislator, should have raised his voice in the Senate against the regulatory laws for FATA if he had any reservations,” the chief justice stated.
The petitioner contended that the federal government had no authority to legislate for FATA if the areas were not covered by the constitution of the country.
Meanwhile, Advocate Asad asked the chief justice to form a larger bench to decide the petition against the 2011 regulations for FATA. His request was turned down by the chief justice, saying that the three-member bench should be considered a larger bench.