The Supreme Court (SC) cannot interfere in the matters of army nor does it wield any authority on this count.
This was said in reply from the Military Intelligence (MI) presented by counsel Ibrahim Satti in the SC in missing persons case on Wednesday.
A two-member bench, comprising Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Ejaz Afzal, took up missing persons’ case for hearing.
The reply further said the army had the authority to take any action against its employees on its own under Army Act 1952. The SC had rendered the decision in Mushtaq Ahmad case in 1996 that it is not authorised to take any action in respect of army convict.
The court directed Col (r) Inamur Rahim, counsel for Dr Abida Malik to study the report and file the reply with regard to objections within two weeks.
The court while expressing dissatisfaction over the performance of police in missing persons’ case of Omar Zada and Omar Hayat from Chakwal sought explanation until June 25.
Justice Afzal said, “Amir Farooq had given statement before the court. If he had committed mistake by doing so. It was duty of police that it should have played its role. Police is making the case adventure deliberately. Police is avoiding to initiate proceedings against a person because he has relevance with armed forces. If some one has already given statement before the court then he is bound to record statement before police. If he does not come to record his statement then police should summon him in connection with his statement by issuing arrest warrants. If some one is impeding the process then the court be informed. We want missing persons no matter they are brought from any where. We can not provide opportunity again and again. When such a solid evidence is available then why the proceedings is not being initiated.”
At the inception of the hearing the police told the court that Omar Farooq had gone missing on the day he had given statement with reference to Omar Zada and Omar Hayat. He had contacted by telephone three days earlier and said he would meet police after a few days.
The court said, “You should have traced him out through telephonic call. You should have arrested him and obtained statement from him.”
The court was told that the commission had barred them from arresting him.
The court observed, “The commission has prevented from arresting him and not from investigating him.”
The SP told the court that the case was three-year-old and it should be referred to provincial taskforce.
The court scolded him, saying this way his incompetence stands proved. “We are giving you time till June, 25. Statement be obtained from Omar Farooq and presented in the court,” the court remarked.
