ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday summoned Islamabad City Magistrate Ghulam Mudassir, seeking an explanation for including sedition charges in the first information report (FIR) registered against the 23 activists who had been detained for protesting against the arrest of Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM) chief Manzoor Pashteen.
During the hearing, IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah was told that Mudassir ordered for the FIR to be registered against the 23 individuals, which included activists from the Awami Workers Party (AWP) and PTM.
“What is this? How can you first place sedition charges on peaceful protesters and later turn them into terrorism charges?” Justice Minallah questioned, noting: “Today you are saying that the terrorism charges have also been dropped.”
“Why should we not start proceedings against the one who asked for the case to be registered [in the first place]? The magistrate should appear in court and tell us why he gave such orders,” Justice Minallah said.
The judge then proceeded to order that the magistrate provide the court his explanation along with a sworn affidavit.
“How about we take away judicial powers from the magistrate?” the chief justice remarked, while once again summoning the Islamabad chief commissioner and the Islamabad police chief to court in the next hearing.
“We will turn this case into an example for everyone,” the IHC chief justice said, as he adjourned the hearing till Feb 17.
POLICE DROP SEDITION CHARGES:
In the last hearing, Islamabad Deputy Commissioner Hamza Shafqaat and Deputy Inspector General (DIG) Waqar-ud-din Syed had informed the court that Section 124-A (sedition) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) had been replaced with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997, in the FIR.
The court had, at that time, granted port-arrest bail to the activists, and asked for a report on why sedition charges were added to the FIR.
The court’s written orders of bail said: “A plain reading of the FIR shows that the offenses mentioned therein are, prima facie, not attracted. There is also no material on the record in support of the assertions made in the FIR.”
It was further observed in the order that Additional District and Sessions Judge Mohammad Sohail — who had earlier declined to grant post-arrest bail to the PTM activists by saying that prima facie it was a terrorism case — “appears to have exceeded jurisdiction by making observations [regarding terrorism …] without having regard to the recently enunciated law by the august Supreme Court regarding scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997”.
“Moreover, the observations recorded by the learned judge are not in consonance with the principles of fair trial,” the order had said.