Chief justice urged to form full bench to review May 9 cases
Families of detained PTI activists also appeal to the army chief to show compassion and investigate the mater, emphasising that most of those held in military custody are lawabiding citizens
Families of individuals belonging to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-insaf (PTI) detained since the May 9 violence have urged Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa to establish a full bench to review the cases of their loved ones, many of whom have been in military custody for nearly a year.
They also appealed to the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Asim Munir to show compassion and investigate the mater, emphasising that most of those held in military custody are lawabiding citizens.
At a presser, the families of the detainees shared their distress alongside senior PTI leaders Ali Muhammad Khan, Raoof Hassan, and Barrister Abuzar Niazi.
Sidra Murtaza, whose brother was arrested on May 9 for participating in a protest, recounted his journey through various levels of custody, from police to the Anti-terrorism Court (ATC), and then to the military.
She expressed the families’ hope that the Supreme Court would provide justice but lamented that the court had yet to issue a ruling or form a full bench to hear their cases.
She also referenced a previous case involving the Army Public School (APS), where Justice Isa ruled that civilians should not be tried in military courts, a decision that led to constitutional amendments with sunset clause, allowing trials of terrorists in military courts.
She stressed that these detainees deserve a fair trial in civilian courts as guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan.
Family members voiced their frustrations over the lack of transparency and prolonged detention. Taimoor Majeed, whose brother was arrested on Aug.13 for participating in a protest outside the Corps Commander House in Lahore Cantonment, shared that it took five months for them to discover his brother was in military custody.
When they finally met, his brother had lost a significant amount of weight, indicating harsh conditions.
The affected families are seeking a fair and transparent investigation, with a fair trial in civil courts, as well as the opportunity to meet their loved ones under more humane conditions.
They reiterated that while they do not expect favouritism, they demand justice for their relatives who are suffering from lengthy incarceration and uncertain legal status.
In a separate development, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has questioned during a hearing of the bail application of PTI founder Imran Khan in the 190-million-pound case why his special assistant [Barrister Shehzad Akbar] had signed the agreement between the UN’S National Crime Agency (NCA) and property businessman Malik Riaz.
In the 190-million appeal, the IHC said that it was a private agreement between the NCA and the property tycoon, asking how this matter had come before the federal cabinet when Imran Khan was the prime minister and was approved by it.
Imran’s counsel Sardar Latif Khosa said the NCA had stipulated the approval of the cabinet for the return of money and Shehzad Akbar had placed a note before the cabinet, which okayed it. He said Imran as prime minister approved the note so that the money could come back to Pakistan and he was not a beneficiary.
IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri heard the bail application of the PTI founder, who has been arrested in the 190-million-pound NAB case. The court took exception to the no-show of the investigation officer and asked why he did not appear and whether it should issue a warrant to ensure his appearance.
Latif Khosa said the NCA had frozen the amount in the UK, which was transferred to Pakistan through an agreement. The frozen amount of 190 million pounds was sent to Pakistan ater tax deductions and 171 million pounds were transferred to the Supreme Court’s account, which was returned to the Government of Pakistan by the Supreme Court on Nov.23, 2023.
Justice Jahangiri enquired how the money came to the account of the Supreme Court, and if this money was proceeds of crime, and why it was frozen.