Maintainability issue: Further arguments sought in Taliban office case
The petitioner has requested the court to take suo motu action.
The petitioner has requested the court to take suo motu action. PHOTO: FILE
LAHORE:
Lahore High Court Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Friday sought more arguments on the maintainability of a petition seeking instruction for a Taliban office to be opened in Pakistan to facilitate dialogue with the government.
Hearing was adjourned till May 9. Justice Bandial directed the petitioner’s counsel Advocate Kashif Solomany to present convincing arguments as to how the court could legally intervene in policy matters. The chief justice said the matter of holding a dialogue or not, was for the government to decide and the court could not issue any directions to the government in this regard.
Solomany requested the court to take suo motu action to “protect the fundamental right to life threatened by terrorism and drone attacks”. The chief justice responded that the Supreme Court had recently ruled that High Courts did not have the authority to take suo motu notice.
The petitioner had nominated the federation of Pakistan, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Finance as respondents. He had stated that surgical strikes against the Taliban in Pakistan without first holding dialogue would be a grave error and counterproductive. He said the respondents should be directed to hold dialogue with the Taliban to ensure peace in the country.
He had said Pakistan had lost 49,000 people to the war against terror since 9/11 and more than 24,000 civilians and troops had been killed in attacks between 2001 and 2008.
“The armed forces have lost 15,681 men, some 5,152 civilians have been killed and 5,678 injured in bomb blasts and suicide attacks since 2008,” the petitioner said.
Solomani had stated that Pakistan had suffered around $100 billion losses since it allied with the US in this war. Economic growth had slowed down, the demand for imports had dwindled and there had been consequential decline in tax revenue. Inflows of foreign investment had been adversely affected, accentuated by travel bans imposed by various countries.
He said Pakistan continued to pay a heavy price. A large section of human and material resources had been consumed by the war.
Solomani said talks with the Taliban were an “efficacious, adequate and alternative remedy”, but the option was being ignored. Military action had borne no fruit so it was time to try dialogue. He said the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan had denied responsibility for three recent bomb attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which raised the question of who was really behind the attacks.
The petitioner said that a Taliban office would facilitate dialogue. He said the national leadership should give dialogue a chance in the interest of peace. He said under United Nations Organisation charter no sanctions could be imposed on Pakistan for holding a dialogue with the Taliban.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 29th, 2014.
Lahore High Court Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Friday sought more arguments on the maintainability of a petition seeking instruction for a Taliban office to be opened in Pakistan to facilitate dialogue with the government.
Hearing was adjourned till May 9. Justice Bandial directed the petitioner’s counsel Advocate Kashif Solomany to present convincing arguments as to how the court could legally intervene in policy matters. The chief justice said the matter of holding a dialogue or not, was for the government to decide and the court could not issue any directions to the government in this regard.
Solomany requested the court to take suo motu action to “protect the fundamental right to life threatened by terrorism and drone attacks”. The chief justice responded that the Supreme Court had recently ruled that High Courts did not have the authority to take suo motu notice.
The petitioner had nominated the federation of Pakistan, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Finance as respondents. He had stated that surgical strikes against the Taliban in Pakistan without first holding dialogue would be a grave error and counterproductive. He said the respondents should be directed to hold dialogue with the Taliban to ensure peace in the country.
He had said Pakistan had lost 49,000 people to the war against terror since 9/11 and more than 24,000 civilians and troops had been killed in attacks between 2001 and 2008.
“The armed forces have lost 15,681 men, some 5,152 civilians have been killed and 5,678 injured in bomb blasts and suicide attacks since 2008,” the petitioner said.
Solomani had stated that Pakistan had suffered around $100 billion losses since it allied with the US in this war. Economic growth had slowed down, the demand for imports had dwindled and there had been consequential decline in tax revenue. Inflows of foreign investment had been adversely affected, accentuated by travel bans imposed by various countries.
He said Pakistan continued to pay a heavy price. A large section of human and material resources had been consumed by the war.
Solomani said talks with the Taliban were an “efficacious, adequate and alternative remedy”, but the option was being ignored. Military action had borne no fruit so it was time to try dialogue. He said the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan had denied responsibility for three recent bomb attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which raised the question of who was really behind the attacks.
The petitioner said that a Taliban office would facilitate dialogue. He said the national leadership should give dialogue a chance in the interest of peace. He said under United Nations Organisation charter no sanctions could be imposed on Pakistan for holding a dialogue with the Taliban.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 29th, 2014.