Lal Masjid operation: SC asked to stay proceeding of commission

The Federal Shariat Court was cautioned Tuesday about the political fall out of the late thought probe into the Lal Masjid incident.
The senior judge of FSC, Justice Shahzado Sheikh, was ordered by the Supreme Court on Dec. 4 last to submit a report within 45-days about the causes and casualties in the 11-day long pitched battle in July 2007.
A petition questioning the appointment of the Commission, more than five years after the incident, called attention to the recent “antithetical statements” made by General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Petitioner Shahid Orakzai stated he did not intend to question the “legitimacy or legality” of the clashing statements of the Chief of Army Staff and the Chief Justice of Pakistan but their connectivity with the appointment of the Commission shall be examined by the Court.
General Kayani’s statement, the Court was informed, came only a few days after the Supreme Court put “criminal liability” on two retired generals including General Mirza Aslam Beg, former Chief of Army Staff. The statement of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, on the other hand, was publicized, broadcast and published as a “quick rebuttal to the loud and clear caution of the Chief of Army Staff”, the petitioner stated.
The Court was cautioned that the legal task assigned to its Senior Judge was much different than the one performed by the apex Court through its Judgment in the Asghar Khan Case because the majority of security personnel involved in Lal Masjid Operation may still be in “active service”. Besides, being an ‘Aalim Judge’, Justice Sheikh had no qualifications or experience in criminal law since he had never been a judge of High Court or even an advocate thereof.
As for “fixing responsibility upon the personnel of the security agencies”, emphasized by the Supreme Court, the petitioner pointed out that the word “personnel” was generally used for lower ranks than the senior officers and commanders. The military personnel obviously acted under Pakistan Army Act, 1952 and for “maintenance of discipline” that law stands exempted from Fundamental Rights by Article 8 of the Constitution.
The 45-days period, the petitioner pointed out, ends in the third week of January while the term of the National Assembly expires on March 18 next. “Hence the political fallout of the material to be collected by the Commission in the run up to the general elections is fairly perceivable,” the petitioner stated. The Court was asked to stay the proceedings of the Commission.