LAHORE – In his detailed judgement on four petitions challenging the release of US national Raymond Davis, Lahore High Court Chief Justice Ijaz Chaudhry said, “None of the petitions against Raymond Davis in Lahore High Court raised questions on the status of Davis’s diplomatic immunity and thus the court was not supposed to rule on the immunity question.”
The court held that the LHC disposed of the four petitions after addressing all main points raised by the petitioners in their applications. LHC CJ Ijaz Chaudhry on March 14, two days before the release of Raymond Davis by the trial court, disposed of four petitions filed by Asif Hussain, Ahmad Masood Gujar, Barrister Iqbal Jafree, Azhar Siddique and Rana Ilmuddin Ghazi, resulting in criticism from some quarters.
In the detailed order, the LHC CJ justified the disposal of the four petitions by referring to the whole proceedings and the replies of the federal government and Punjab government on the matter. In the order, quoting the relief sought by petitioners, the LHC CJ held that the petitions sought a judicial inquiry into the murder of two Pakistani citizens at the hands of an American given the apprehension that he would be extended diplomatic immunity.
Another petition, the court order noted, prayed that Raymond’s real name was not known and that he had been granted a fraudulent Pakistani visa. It demanded the recovery of all documents in relation to him and their production before the court. Another plea sought orders to direct the federal government not to interfere with the case investigation till the conclusion of the trail and that he not be shifted beyond the LHC’s jurisdiction.
The LHC held that replies on the identical petitions were summoned from the federal government through the deputy attorney general (DAG). The reply told that the accused’s real name was Raymond Allen Davis and he was US embassy employee and had come to Pakistan on a business visa.
Answering the diplomatic status question, the DAG referred to LHC order dated 01/02/2011 which said, “the court has already taken cognizance into the matter, the investigation into the above noted criminal case is going on and if any matter of immunity arises in future that can be determined by the courts of law.”
