close
Thursday March 28, 2024

IHC shows concern at third party role in accord to end dharna

By Faisal Kamal Pasha
November 28, 2017

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday expressed indignation over the role of the army in ending the Tehreek Labaik Pakistan sit-in at the Faizabad Interchange and said it had ordered the administration to end the sit-in.

Resuming hearing of the sit-in case, Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui severely criticised the role of army in bringing about an agreement between the government and sit-in leaders, duly signed by Major General Faiz Hameed. 

When a copy of the agreement was furnished with the court in which the sit-in leaders had thanked Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Javed Bajwa and his team for the agreement and saving the nation from a huge disaster, Justice Siddiqui asked under what authority a serving major general had signed the agreement as an arbitrator.

"The army officers eager to participate in politics should first return their guns to the state, take retirement and then join politics.

“Army is just a part of the executive. How can it act as an arbitrator? Is the Pakistan Army a United Nations force that is working as an arbitrator? How come the army become an arbitrator between the law-enforcing and law-breaking agencies? Had the sit-in been staged near the GHQ instead of Hamza Camp, I would see how it was possible. Mashallah, a nuclear power is hostage to a few hundred protesters for the last 22 days,” Justice Siddiqui remarked. "Prima facie, the role assumed by the top leadership of the army is besides the Constitution and law of the land. The armed forces being part of the executive cannot travel beyond their mandate bestowed upon them by the organic law of the country i.e. the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan".

The judge said: "Besides a number of serious objections to the terms of agreement, the most alarming is that Major General Faiz Hameed put signatures as the one through whom the agreement arrived. It is also very strange that efforts of General Qamar Javed Bajwa, Chief of Army Staff, have been acknowledged. This court has serious reservations about the terms of agreement and mannerism in which it arrived; however, the federal government has to satisfy the court about the constitutional role of the armed forces and an acknowledgment by the federal government/executive of the country regarding the role of armed forces as an arbitrator".

Justice Siddiqui said he might get assassinated or included in the list of missing persons after saying all this, but it was his duty to speak the truth. “Everybody should come to know that there are no followers of Justice Munir in the courts anymore. Both the government and the army are trying to save Minister of State for Information Technology Anusha Rehman and are trying to make Zahid Hamid a scapegoat.” He asked as to why the army did not cooperate with the civilian government when it was directed to assist 'in aid of civil power'.

Addressing Ahsan Iqbal, he said: “You dishonored and failed the ICT administration and police. A message was successfully conveyed that only the army is capable of nabbing the culprits and civil administration is just incapable.” He told the minister that the federal government through this agreement had exposed the role of the army in the sit-in. “Both the civilian government and the army are trying their best to defeat each other and they don't have any concerns for the loss and destruction of the state.”

The judge directed the attorney general for Pakistan to assist the court on how the armed forces could act as an arbitrator. The bench directed the chief commissioner Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) and Intelligence Bureau (IB) to furnish reports telling why the operation had failed and who provided support and lethal weapons, tear gas and gas masks to the protesters.

Joint Director General (JDG) Intelligence Bureau (IB) Anwar Ali was directed to submit a report telling from where the sit-in protesters had brought the guns to fire tear gas shells, masks to protect themselves from tear gas, grenades, weapons and other equipment. He was directed to submit a report on the failure of the operation and the aid provided to the protesters when the police had almost cleared the Faizabad Interchange.

Reports may also be submitted on the viral audio, wherein some high ranking army officer was explaining the army's point of view on the sit-in to a personality by the name of Saqib". Addressing Anwar Ali, Justice Siddiqui said: “You people are also not playing a positive role and picking up fights with the ISI.”

According to a clause of the agreement, the federal and Punjab governments will compensate the losses due to sit-in and operation. The bench expressed severe displeasure over the clause and asked why the state will pay for all the losses and why the protesters were not asked to apologise for the filthy language they used against the superior judiciary. In the written orders, the bench said: "It is a matter of record that most abusive and filthy language was used against the honorable judges of the Supreme Court, but the federal government and the arbitrator did not bother to persuade the leadership of TLYRA to even tender an apology in this regard”.

At the start of the proceedings, Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal submitted the agreement to the court. The court asked about a copy of the agreement. When the minister sought some time to submit the copy, Justice Siddiqui remarked whosoever had a smart-phone in this country had already received copies of the agreement and he too had one. The chief commissioner had a copy of the agreement which he had received on WhatsApp, and on court’s direction he read out the agreement. A deputy attorney general (DAG) also provided a copy of agreement to the court.

When the agreement was read out in the court, and there came the mention of acknowledgment for the representative team of army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa through Major General Faiz Hameed, Justice Siddiqui intervened and asked how a major general could act as an arbitrator. He said it was the proof that the sit-in was organised on their orders. He asked the counsel to tell the court whether the COAS was part of the executive or not.

Addressing the officials, Justice Siddiqui said who had failed this operation and who back-stabbed the Islamabad Police.

“Where is Radd-ul-Fasad and all those operations against the terrorists? The army should stay within its constitutional role. The institutions of this country are at loggerheads with each other and are destroying this country.”

The judge asked Ahsan Iqbal when the Faizabad Interchange will be vacated. Ahsan expressed the hope that the interchange will be vacated today as the national leadership had reached an agreement with the sit-in leaders. At this Justice Siddiqui remarked, "How come and when the army was included in the national leadership". About Major General Faiz Hameed, Justice Siddiqui remarked that the person who should be court-martialed was an arbitrator in this agreement.

Addressing Ahsan Iqbal, Justice Siddiqui said through this agreement, he had established that this project (Dharna) belonged to them (army). “Both of you are playing games to defeat each other.”

The bench expressed severe displeasure over the failure of the operation at which Ahsan Iqbal said the court had directed the ICT administration. He said had the responsibility been given to him, he would have resolved the issue peacefully. Justice Siddiqui said: “Had I not ordered clearing the Faizabad Interchange? Who was responsible for removing the protesters?” Ahsan replied that it was the responsibility of the civil administration. He said the situation was very much complicated, as it was a religious issue.

“The country was divided. Had it been a political dispute, the situation would have been entirely different,” he justified.

At this, Justice Siddiqui remarked: “Prior to this, we had saved you last year when the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf had announced a lockdown on the capital. We have already mentioned the role of Anusha Rehman. Both the federal government and the military are trying to save her and trying to make Zahid Hamid a scapegoat.” The judge asked who was this Mohsin Abbas, to which he was told that Mohsin was an employee of the law ministry. Justice Siddiqui asked Secretary Interior Arshad Mehmood Mirza where was the report of Raja Zafar-ul-Haq Committee. Mirza replied that he had written a letter to Senator Raja Zafarul Haq asking him for the report but he was told that no report had been prepared.

At this, Justice Siddiqui said: “The report is already prepared. It is signed by Raja Zafarul Haq and Senator Mushahidullah Khan but only Ahsan Iqbal is yet to sign the report.”

Addressing Mirza, he said if he could not produce the report, then the court would ask Barrister Zafarullah to submit it. “Whatever has been said in Raja Zafarul committee about the roles of different persons, we shall inform the whole country,” he said.

Justice Siddiqui remarked that there was a video on the Internet in which somebody had offered a bounty of one million rupees on his head. Sector Commander of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Arfan Shaheed Ramay said it was not right to form an opinion on the basis of social media content. To this, Justice Siddiqui remarked whether clogging roads and asking the government for demands did not come under an act of terrorism. Addressing Brigadier Ramay, Justice Siddiqui said: “You people at any cost should have sided with the government. How come you become arbitrators?”

Inamur Rahim, advocate, a legal counsel for a petitioner, said under the Army Act, no army official could become an arbitrator in such a dispute. The interior minister told the judge that it was an extraordinary situation and they were under attack and should have fought the enemy jointly. “The protesters were disconnecting the whole country from the rail network to road network,” the minister said. At this, Justice Siddiqui remarked that he had surrendered before the protesters. “We are ready to fight side-by-side the army and lay our lives in protecting this country, but nobody could be allowed to go beyond the role prescribed in the Constitution. Now this drama should be ended.”

Justice Siddiqui said: “The whole Ummah is the guardian of Khatam-e-Nabuwwat (SAW). As a student in 1974, I went to jail for participating in the protests for Khatam-e-Nabuwwat. I myself am an Aashiq-e-Rasool (SAW) and the ink of my previous order in the blasphemy case has not dried yet.” Ahsan Iqbal said he was the son of a mother who had introduced Khatam-e-Nabuwwat law in parliament.

Justice Siddiqui said: “Beyond any doubt, you are the son of a great mother and a grandson of a great, grandfather.”

In the concluding paragraph of today's order the bench noted: "It is made clear that the questions raised by this court shall not be used as an excuse to dislodge/disburse the protesters of sit-in, as the order to clear Faizabad Interchange is still in field and if the protesters are bent upon carrying on dharna, the federal government and the ICT administration are required to persuade them to shift the sit-in to the "Parade Ground" in the alternative to proceed in terms of Section 4 & 5 of Anti Terrorism Act 1997". The judge directed the respondents to submit reports till November 30 and adjourned hearing till December 4. The IHC bench was hearing two petitions filed by Syed Pervaiz Zahoor and Rana Abdul Qayyum against the protest/sit-it.