Missing persons case: SC won’t take no for an answer

The Supreme Court told the directors general of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Military Intelligence (MI) as well as the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) chief secretary once again on Friday to ensure at all costs that the remaining seven missing prisoners who were picked up by the spy agencies from outside Adiala Jail were produced in court on February 13.
A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry hearing a petition filed by a woman named Rohaifa, the mother of three of the missing prisoners, also issued a notice to the KP governor through the chief secretary. All three were directed to inform the court after procuring a report on whether the authorities concerned had ascertained the condition of the prisoners who were allegedly detained in the Parachinar Internment Centre.
The court told Raja Muhammad Irshad, the counsel for the respondents, to positively produce all seven prisoners in court on Monday. Irshad was appearing alongside Joint Secretary Chaudhry Muhammad Yaqoob and Defence Ministry Director (Legal) Commander Muhammad Hussain Shahbaz. In its order, the court said: “Although the reply was filed by the respondents, compliance was not made. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is the responsibility of Director General, ISI, Director General, MI and Judge Advocate General, JAG Branch, to comply with the order of the court in letter and spirit. Non-appearance of their (respondents’) counsel also suggests that reluctance is being shown in producing the detainees before the court.”
The court noted that this fact may not be out of context that initially when the case came up before the court on January 6, 2011, the statement was made by Irshad on behalf of the ISI and MI chiefs and the JAG branch that the prisoners in question were taken from Adiala Jail for the purpose of trial under the Army Act. The court observed that reportedly four of them, namely Muhammad Amir, Tahseenullah, Said Arab and Abdul Saboor, had died in the meantime. The court noted that according to Irshad, the dead bodies of two of the four deceased prisoners were handed over to the Lady Reading Hospital (LRH) Peshawar, while Said Arab was alive at the time and subsequently died in LRH and his dead body was also handed over to his family. “As far as the dead body of Abdul Saboor is concerned, it was found lying in an ambulance parked near Haji Camp, Peshawar. Therefore, production of the rest of the seven persons before the court is all the more necessary,” the court said in its order. The court said further: “In the circumstances, we direct DG ISI, DG MI and JAG branch severally and jointly, as well as the Chief Secretary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, who is the head of the civil administration over there, to ensure production of these persons before this court in safe custody without fail on Feb 13.”
At the outset of the hearing, Irshad told the bench that four detainees had died while four others were currently under treatment at LRH. The three remaining persons were at a detention facility in Parachinar, he said, and they could not be presented in court. The court expressed its dismay over his statement and said it had clearly directed that the missing prisoners should be produced. The court then asked him who was standing in the way of its orders, saying that if the prime minister could appear in court, everyone else should also be able to do so. When the bench resumed hearing of the case at 5pm, the counsel for the intelligence agencies Irshad Kayani was not present in court. Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq stated that

at about 3.30pm, Kayani had informed him that the detainees who were in the Parachinar Internment Centre could not be brought as they had to travel a long distance from Parachinar to Islamabad and at the same time, he also said the detainees reportedly admitted to LRH would also be brought along with them.
It was stated in the court order that the KP advocate general, who appeared on notice, was asked to explain if the statement/information so recorded by the court was accepted to be correct – which meant that the detainees were in the custody of the civil administration because the persons who were in the Internment Centre could not be kept there without the sanction of the competent authority: the governor. Similarly, the detainees in the LRH were in a civil hospital, therefore the civil administration ought to have enquired about their detention there. Peshawar Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Imtiaz Ahmad appeared in court and stated that he had no knowledge of the admission or detention of the four prisoners in LRH. Tariq Asad, counsel for petitioner, said the defence secretary had nothing to do with the matter and the main responsible officials were the chiefs of the ISI and MI in the case, therefore the court should issue contempt notices to them. The court, however, rejected his plea and said its prime objective was the protection of the remaining prisoners. The court was told that four prisoners had met their family at the LRH. Later, the court adjourned further hearing until February 13.