Aitezaz appeals SC registrar’s objections to plea against ‘enforced disappearances’

ISLAMABAD: Senior lawyer and former Senator Barrister Aitezaz Ahsen has challenged the objections of the registrar of the Supreme Court to a petition challenging “the unlawful practice of enforced disappearances and praying to declare it violation of various Articles of the Constitution.

The former senator filed a chamber appeal through Sardar Latif Khosa Advocate in the apex court, praying that the registrar’s decision of November 8 be set aside and his petition be assigned a number and fixed for hearing at the earliest.

The former senator has filed a petition in the apex court through Sardar Latif Khosa under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, making the Federation of Pakistan through the Federal Interior Secretary, Chief Secretaries of the four provinces, Inspector Generals of the four provinces as well as Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances as respondents.

Aitezaz Ahsen had prayed the apex court to declare enforced disappearances violative of, inter alia, Articles 4, 9, 10, 14, 19 and 25 of the Constitution besides declaring that the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances does not adequately comply with legal and international standards. Similarly, he prayed the court to set up an effective and purposeful commission as done by the court in the case of Want Party PLD 2012 SC, 292.

Aitezaz Ahsen had prayed the court that the commission should be headed by a judge of the Supreme Court as its chairman who has, at least, two years ahead of him/her in office while members of the commission should be the Supreme Court Bar Association president, the Pakistan Bar Council through its vice chairman, presidents of Lahore, Sindh, Peshawar, Quetta bar associations, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan chairman, National Commission on Status of Women chairperson, Director General of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Additional Director General of Intelligence Bureau (IB) and President Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists.

The Registrar office of the apex court, however, had returned the petition by raising objections to the petition. In his chamber appeal, Aitezaz Ahsen submitted that the registrar was not competent to decide about the maintainability of a petition, adding that Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, the judge of the Supreme Court, has already declared that nothing was mentioned in the Rules that empower the registrar to determine the maintainability of any petition and under the Supreme Court Rules 1980, only the court has to decide in this regard.

Aitezaz Ahsen submitted that if the case was not heard, then a message would go that that enforced disappearances were a not matter of public interest. He submitted that the contents of the paragraph c of the registrar’s decision reflect a judicial pronouncement which is not permissible and even otherwise wholly misplaced. Referring to the registrar contention that the ingredients for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court have not been satisfied, Aitezaz Ahsen contended that the case fulfills all the requirements of Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

Ahsen argued that the illegal and unlawful practice of enforced disappearances had great impacts, saying that the disappeared person is kept in unacknowledged, secret and unofficial detention facilities, thereby increasing the potential of torture and inhuman treatment.

The right to life and liberty, freedom from torture and the right to be produced before a court within 24 hours of arrest are infringed upon, Ahsen submitted, adding that since the disappeared person is effectively outside the protection of the law, the state has the licence to act with compete and total impunity.

He contended that the families of the disappeared person are kept in the dark regarding the whereabouts of their loved one, not granted access or allowed to meet the detainee for months on end. “The lives of entire families are destroyed by the illegal and unlawful practice of enforced disappearances”, Ahsen submitted. He urged the apex court to exercise its original jurisdiction in accordance with its object and purpose.