Enforced disappearances: PHC warns of criminal cases against spy agencies

Says it will ask GHQ to ban departmental promotions and try those guilty under the army act.


Umer Farooq July 04, 2013
Momin Khan, a resident of Malakand Agency, alleged security agencies had detained his father Sher Zamin. PHOTO: FILE

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Thursday warned cases would be registered against personnel of intelligence agencies deployed in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) and the tribal areas if ‘missing’ persons were found to be in their custody.

A division bench comprising PHC Chief Justice Dost Muhammad Khan and Justice Qaisar Rashid said General Headquarters (GHQ) would also be asked to ban departmental promotions while those involved in illegally detaining people would be prosecuted under the army act for offenses against civilians.



The orders were issued by the bench on Thursday while hearing 123 habeas corpus petitions filed by relatives who allege their loved ones are in the custody of security agencies. The court was informed two such ‘missing’ persons had been sent to internment centres, Alizai and Fort Slop, while two others had returned home.

Deputy Attorney General Muzammil Khan requested the court to adjourn the hearing till July 23 saying other cases of similar nature were to be heard on the same day. The bench, however, turned down his request and asked him to call the respondents who were not present during the hearing.

“They (agencies) are not adhering to the writ of the court; court orders are being flouted,” observed Justice Khan. Everyone, right from the sector commander, will be booked under sections 365 and 342 of the Pakistan Penal Code, he warned.

The bench maintained Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Military Intelligence (MI) and other defence forces were mistaken if they thought they were above the law and Constitution. These institutions will clearly understand the consequences of deliberately not cooperating to resolve the matter, added the bench.

“Tomorrow, if missing individuals are found in the custody of agencies, it would be ample proof of illegal detention,” said Justice Khan.

The bench ordered federal secretaries for defence and interior be asked to direct field commanders and spy agencies operating in the area to provide the court with updates on detention centres. It also stipulated the ‘missing’ men either be freed or those against whom evidence is available be sent to internment centres by the next date. Otherwise, the court orders to register cases against secret agencies’ personnel will prevail. The hearing was later adjourned till August 21.

Like with all previous hearings, relatives of those missing were present outside the court room, eagerly waiting to hear the future course of action against respondents. Relatives allege these respondents are keeping their family members in illegal detention.

‘And he never returned home’

Standing outside the courtroom, Haya Khan, a resident of Pishtakhara, said his brother Riaz Khan, 26, a motor mechanic, was allegedly in the custody of security agencies.

Haya told The Express Tribune one day his brother received a phone call and left the house, and has been missing since. He added his family suspected members of intelligence agencies picked Riaz up as he was seen in the custody of the local police who now deny his arrest.

Momin Khan, a resident of Malakand Agency, alleged security agencies had detained his father Sher Zamin, 48. Zamin, a fruit dealer, was picked up while commuting in a rickshaw on July 27, 2009 after the military operation in Swat.

Another petitioner Talat Hussain claimed his father Faheem Hussain, a resident of Michni in Mohmand Agency, was also in the custody of security agencies. Faheem, a road inspector of the Construction and Works Department in Charsadda, was allegedly picked up by security agencies from Khyber Bazaar on January 24, 2011.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 5th, 2013.

COMMENTS

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