A counsel for the secret agencies on Wednesday apprised the Supreme Court that detenue at the internment center in Parachinar were handed over to the political administration for decision of their cases under the Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR).
Raja Muhammad Irshad, counsel for the secret agencies, submitted a statement before a three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, saying that the internment authorities had withdrawn the internment orders of detenue and they had been handed over to the political administration for dealing their cases under the FCR.
The bench was hearing a plea moved by late Rohifa bibi, seeking release of her sons from the internment center Parachinar. These detenue also known as missing Adiala prisoners were captured in FATA where security forces were carrying out operations.
Tariq Asad, counsel for the petitioner, however, said on the basis of such reasons, the instant petition should be disposed of on merit.
He was of the view that the detenue were held illegally by the authorities concerned.
The bench ordering the respondent to hand over a copy of the statement to the counsel, deferred further hearing until March 25.
While in another case, Ghulam Nabi, counsel for senator professor Ibrahim of the Jamaat-e-Islami, resumed his arguments over the promulgation of Action in Aid of the Civil Power Regulations 2011.
He claimed that the Regulations were result of pro-US legacy left behind by former president Pervez Musharraf.
The chief justice told him that they had nothing to do with the pro-US or anti-US issues or Musharraf, as the court would have to dispose the case on the basis of facts.
The counsel citing Sections 8 and 9 of the Regulations contended that it was given a retrospective affect from the year 2008 with vast powers given to internment authorities in the Provincial Administrative Tribal Areas (PATA) where they could keep anyone in the center without following the due process and production before the courts.
To the counsel’s arguments, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed pointed out whether all the federal and provincial legislation did not contain indemnity?
The CJ told the counsel to justify his stance with facts and satisfy them that such legislation was not required keeping in view the prevailing situation in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
He said the court had not curtailed its judicial review powers but they could not proceed in vacuum.
“Give facts from your petition, whether you have mentioned anywhere that after promulgation of this law, no act of terror occurred in the province.
“Lawyers were also attacked yesterday in Peshawar,” he added.
Justice Saeed asked whether the lawyers killed in Peshawar were US natives adding, whether Sri Lanka, Nigeria or Saudi Arabia had not adopted such legislations?
