Missing persons: Jurisdiction issues come up at hearing

Wednesday’s hearing started with the division bench hearing the Umar Daraz Khan case.

KARACHI: One of the biggest questions about the missing persons case being heard in Justice Sajjad Ali Shah’s court in the last two days has been about jurisdiction.

As many of those missing from Sindh are being reportedly kept at internment centres in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P), cases get adjourned as the question of jurisdiction has not been settled - the court and advocates have been trying to figure out if a decision made by the Sindh High Court on such a sensitive issue can even be applicable in another province.

On Wednesday’s hearing of the missing persons case, a division bench of Justice Shah and Naimatullah Phulpoto heard the Umar Daraz Khan case first. Colonel Sohaib was contacted and he promised to extend all possible cooperation to help locate the missing person. The court ordered a detailed report to be presented to the bench on February 24.

In Ali Khan vs Province of Sindh & Ors, the bench was informed that the family met the detainee at the internment centre. The question of jurisdiction was brought up on behalf of the federal government. The bench said the case would be heard before Justice Aftab Gorar. The bench also wanted the family of the detainee to file details of medical expenses to the DAG. It is said the detainee had been sick at the internment centre.

Ammna Batool vs the federation of Pakistan was adjourned. The family met the detainee at the internment centre and jurisdiction was questioned again.

The case of a missing person identified as Abdul Qayyum was dismissed. The bench was informed that his relatives met him at Internment Centre PAITHOM in K-P. The petitioner’s brother was certain that he met the right person.

The two cases that followed were adjourned as the petitioners were not present. In another missing person case, the bench was informed that he was being kept in an internment centre in Ghalania, Federally Administered Tribal Areas. It was decided that a meeting between the detainee and family should be facilitated.

In the case of a missing person who was picked up in 2012, a senior officer of the home department said the person would stay in detention till army is in the area, a regulation of 2011. The DAG said that he was in possession of a letter from the ministry of defence which stated that they had shared details of the person with K-P’s home department.

The case of a detainee at the internment centre PAITHOM was adjourned to March 4. The bench was informed that the detainee was ill and so they ordered a detailed report on his health as well. A progress report presented to the bench on another missing person showed that he was not in the military’s custody. The investigating officer complained that the petitioner was not cooperating with the police.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 20^th, 2014.