Pakistan Today

LHC summons AG in petition challenging immunity law

LAHORE – The Lahore High Court on Monday issued a notice to the attorney general for March 14 on a petition challenging Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act, 1972, calling it against fundamental human rights guaranteed in the constitution.
Chief Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry passed the order on a petition filed by petitioner-counsel Muhammad Azhar Siddique. The petitioner-counsel contended the act was in conflict with the fundamental rights as envisaged in the Constitution 1973 and was void in term of Article 8 of the Constitution.
He stated that the Pakistan government, through the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act, 1972, gave legal status to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, and Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963. He prayed to the court to declare Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act 1972 as illegal and set it aside.
He further prayed to the court that the record of the foreign office which had been illegally removed to the interior ministry should be sent back to the foreign office and copies thereof submitted in the court. The petitioner further argued that American Ambassador or American Consular had categorically and publicly declared that the person apprehended by the Punjab police as Raymond Davis was not Raymond Davis and his name was different.
The federal government, the Punjab government, former foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, former PPP secretary information Fauzia Wahab, double-murder accused Raymond Davis and others are respondents to the petition. He contended that in these circumstances Raymond Davis could not be clothed with diplomatic immunity.
He further argued that the investigation agency had recovered instruments from the accused Raymond Davis used for espionage and spying which under the laws was a serious crime. The petitioner prayed to the court to summon former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and PPP information secretary Fauzia Wahab to disclose the material to substantiate their contradictory statements on the issue of diplomatic immunity to Raymond Davis.

Exit mobile version