Quantcast
Channel: The Dawn News - Pakistan
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 108664

Enforced Disappearances: SC disappointed over commission’s performance

$
0
0

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has expressed disappointment over the working of the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances (CIED) set up three years ago and over non-implementation of its recommendations by the departments concerned.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja which had taken up a number of cases relating to missing persons also expressed on Monday concern over non-cooperation by intelligence agencies in tracing the missing persons, especially when they had been blamed for their disappearances.

Attorney General Muneer A. Malik was of the opinion that the CIED and the interior ministry were not on the same page on the issue of missing persons; besides the commission could not follow strictly its terms of reference. But he requested the court to let the commission function and complete its job.

He said the issue of missing persons was a legacy of dictatorial eras and would take decades to be resolved. He said it had taken 15 years to settle such issues in the western world.

The AG said the issue of missing persons could be divided into four categories. The first belongs to those where direct evidence is available; the second where circumstantial evidences are available; in the third category there is no clue or evidence; and the fourth where disappearances are not enforced.

Mr Malik stressed the need for a database to be shared by commissions on human rights, high courts and the Supreme Court and said there was a possibility that many of the people might have been picked up because of matters relating to national security.

He said progress in investigation into enforced disappearances was difficult in the absence of a proper legislation. It will be difficult to answer questions of the court when the trial of persons detained in internment centres will start and how long will they be kept in the centres. Democracy was derailed in the past because of these issues, the AG said.

He admitted that he did not have any information about any government plan to set up a task force for the recovery of missing persons.

Mr Malik said he held a detailed discussion with the secretary to the prime minister who also expressed concern over the issue and assured that the government intended to settle it.

Meanwhile, Advocate Inamur Raheem moved an application on behalf of Abida Malik stating that the Military Intelligence (MI) did not have powers to arrest, detain or investigate any civilian on the basis of such information or evidence as held in the 1977 Saifuddin Saif case.

It was a rejoinder to a reply submitted on behalf of the MI saying that being subject to the Army Act 1952 the agency or its personnel could not be investigated by any court, not even the Supreme Court.

Abida Malik had earlier requested the court to order production of her husband Tasif Ali alias Danish who went missing on Nov 23, 2011 and was allegedly picked up by Major Haider of the MI.

The matter was reported to the Sadiqabad police station on Dec 5 last year. The Lahore High Court heard the case on March 19 this year, but dismissed it.

Advocate Raheem argued that it was the duty of MI personnel to collect, co-relate and analyse information relating to the enemy and provide security clearance for employment and deployment of troops. No institution or agency could be above the law, he added.

He said the apex court in a number of cases had held that if any action of the military authorities was without jurisdiction the superior courts were obliged to interfere. He contended that the MI’s reply was not sustainable in the eye of law because under the dictates of Article 189 of the constitution all the judicial and executive authorities were bound to obey and follow the orders of the apex court.

Besides, Advocate Raheem said, there was no bar on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under any provision of the constitution. He requested the court to reject the MI’s reply and initiate contempt proceedings against it.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 108664

Trending Articles



<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>