Civil Power Act: SC hears petition against regulation
Nabi contended that the scope of regulation was beyond Article 245 of the constitution.
Ghulam Nabi, counsel for former Senator Prof Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, contended that the regulation was used against people fighting against US aggression in FATA and PATA. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court on Monday while hearing a petition against Action (in Aid of Civil Power) Regulation, 2011, sought complete report from secretary FATA regarding the losses of human live from April 12, 2008 till date.
Ghulam Nabi, counsel for former Senator Prof Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, contended that the regulation was used against people fighting against US aggression in FATA and PATA. He said security forces were also involved in killing of people in KPK, as the army chief had himself tendered an apology over the killing of 174 people in FATA.
Nabi contended that the scope of regulation was beyond Article 245 of the constitution as five million IDPs were facing severe hardships due to the enforcement of the act.
However, the CJ asked whether the applicant wanted the accused to be given free trial in view of the Article 4 and 10-A of the constitution.
The hearing of the case was adjourned.
The Supreme Court on Monday while hearing a petition against Action (in Aid of Civil Power) Regulation, 2011, sought complete report from secretary FATA regarding the losses of human live from April 12, 2008 till date.
Ghulam Nabi, counsel for former Senator Prof Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, contended that the regulation was used against people fighting against US aggression in FATA and PATA. He said security forces were also involved in killing of people in KPK, as the army chief had himself tendered an apology over the killing of 174 people in FATA.
Nabi contended that the scope of regulation was beyond Article 245 of the constitution as five million IDPs were facing severe hardships due to the enforcement of the act.
However, the CJ asked whether the applicant wanted the accused to be given free trial in view of the Article 4 and 10-A of the constitution.
The hearing of the case was adjourned.