AG summoned as Moazzam’s wife fears extradition

Karachi
The Sindh High Court issued pre-admission notices to federal and provincial law officers on Thursday on a petition filed by the spouse of Moazzam Ali Khan, an alleged facilitator in the murder of Muttahida Qaumi Movement leader Dr Imran Farooq, over media reports he might be extradited to the United Kingdom.
Farooq died after he was stabbed several times and bludgeoned with a brick in an ambush by two men outside his home in Edgware, north London, in 2010. He had been living in exile in Britain for over a decade when he was slain.
Khan, a businessman, is in the custody of law enforcers under the anti-terrorism law for his alleged involvement in his murder.
His wife, Sadia Bano, said in her petition that Khan was picked up from their house in Azizabad by paramilitary Rangers on April 12.
Referring to media reports, she apprehended that her husband may be extradited to the UK in connection with investigations into Farooq’s murder although there was no extradition treaty between the two countries.
She said her husband’s custody could be handed over to the Scotland Yard without due process, and pleaded with the court to restrain the government from handing over the detainee to any other state.
A division bench, headed by Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto, issued pre-admission notices to the federal and provincial law officers and other respondents for June 11. The court also directed the counsel for the petitioner to justify the maintainability of the petition.
The court also disposed of another petition filed by Khan’s spouse for a meeting with family members after a statement of the Rangers counsel that the family of the detainee had a meeting with him at sub-jail on May 17.
They assured the court that whenever the family wanted to meet the detainee they could do so as per the jail rules. The Rangers had admitted to Khan’s arrest before an anti-terrorism court, and informed it that he had been detained for 90 days.

Amir meeting case
The high court granted two days to the law officer of the Rangers to submit comments explaining why the family of a detained member of the MQM’s Rabita Committee, Mohammad Aamir Khan, was not being allowed to meet him in custody.
Mohammad Azam Khan submitted that his brother, Khan, was taken into custody by the Rangers on March 11 during a raid on the MQM’s headquarters Nine Zero.
He said Khan was present with a delegation of the MQM’s Central Executive Committee at a meeting with leaders of a political party belonging to Punjab at Nine Zero when the Rangers personnel took him into custody during a pre-dawn raid.
He said the Rangers had obtained 90-day custody of his brother from an anti-terrorism court under Section 11-EEEE of the ATA, but his family members were not being allowed a meeting with him.
The complainant pleaded with the high court to declare the denial of a meeting with the political leader as illegal and order the DG Rangers to allow his family to see him and also declare that Khan’s detention under 11-EEEE of the ATA was illegal and liable to be struck down.

Case of missing Baloch
The high court directed the federal law officer to file comments on a petition regarding the allegedly illegal arrest of a son of a self-exiled Baloch leader by personnel of law enforcement agencies. The court was hearing the petition against the alleged arrest of Kachkol Baloch’s son.
Mahpara Baloch said that her 21-year-old brother, Nabeel Baloch, had been taken into custody allegedly by personnel of law enforcement agencies on August 30 from the Garden area. She stated that Nabeel’s family members visited the police station of the area to ascertain his whereabouts, but to no avail.
Mahpara said her brother had nothing to do with any political activity, and asked the court to direct the government agencies to ascertain Nabeel’s whereabouts. Her counsel, Salahuddin Ahmed, said that the police were neither disclosing Nabeel’s whereabouts nor providing any details of the charges levelled against him. The court directed the federal law officer to submit comments of the remaining respondents, and adjourned the hearing for a date to be fixed by the office.