Faizabad sit-in: No clause of accord has legal standing, says IHC

ISLAMABAD: Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) while hearing petitions against Faizabad sit-in observed that no clause of the agreement signed by the federal government with the protesters of Tehreek-e-Labbaik has legal standing and the case will not close until redress to injured policemen. The court also directed secretary Ministry of Defence to probe the matter who used the name of the chief of army staff in a disputed agreement that was.
The IHC bench noted in Monday’s order, "It is also expected from the secretary Ministry of Defence that probe shall be made that how name of chief of army staff has been used in the disputed agreement and to identify the persons responsible, who brought embarrassment to the institution".
The court criticised the agreement and remarked that it was by no means an agreement rather a unilateral surrender to the demands of protesters. The bench has also directed the federal government to put this issue before the cabinet and discuss constitutionality and legality of the agreement and Army should also be included in that session. The bench was told that the federal government has waived of privilege with regard to the report of Raja Zafarul Haq Committee and it would be submitted before the court.
Addressing Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Ashtar Ausaf Ali, the IHC bench said, “Do a favour to this country; at least rid this country of the Fatwas of being apostate (Kufr) issued from mosques and seminaries. If I don't kiss my thumbs, I could come under fire from a Fatwa issued by another school of thought. No one's life is safe in this country.” He remarked that that matter of blasphemy committed by the protesters during their sit-in at Faizabad also needs to be probed.
At start of the proceedings, chief commissioner Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) and a joint director of Intelligence Bureau (IB) submitted their reports in compliance to the court order of November 27. The court had directed the said two officials to furnish reports that why Faizabad clearance operation failed and who provided support to protesters with lethal weapons, teargas and gasmasks as well. Reports were submitted in sealed envelopes.
During Monday’s proceedings, the IHC inquired from the AGP that what was the stance of the federal government about the agreement signed with protesters. The AGP sought time to submit reply. "When confronted (AGP) with the contents of agreement arrived at between the protesters of sit-in and the government of Pakistan, the learned attorney general submits that in order to make any statement about the same, he may be granted some time so that matter may be taken up with the relevant quarters to examine the constitutionality and legality of this agreement," the court order said. The AGP further said that since issues of these petitions pending before the IHC are directly or indirectly sub judice before the Supreme Court in suo moto case number 7, therefore, propriety demands that till the passing of final judgment, no further proceedings may be conducted regarding this matter. The AGP also produced a copy of the apex court order dated November 30. The IHC bench noted, "Order passed by the august Supreme Court clearly suggests that although some issues raised through these petitions do not find mention in order of the Supreme Court, however, in utter respect and great reverence to the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court, it would be appropriate that till final decision by Supreme Court, no substantive order may be passed by this court."
Justice Siddiqui said the protesters burnt and demolished public property. He observed that this is by no means an agreement rather a list of demand by the protesters that have been signed in the presence of Army officers. “I myself am an Aashiq-e-Rasool (Peace Be Upon Him) but another school of thought could label me 'Gustakh' as I don't kiss the thumb nails.”
The AGP said that use of religion for personal gains is also blasphemy or Gustakhi. Justice Siddiqui said that you also have to see how the protesters had been committing blasphemy during their stay at Faizabad. Justice Siddiqui expressed astonishment that they were committing blasphemy and the state surrendered before them.
At this, the AGP submitted that the state did not surrender, but the agreement was signed just to restore peace. Expressing astonishment over the withdrawal of FIRs registered against the protesters, Justice Siddiqui said how the federal government could withdraw FIRs against the violent protestors unilaterally? He said the protestors thrashed the police officials mercilessly and had there been khaki uniform instead of blue, he situation would have been entirely different. The judge questioned that wasn't it right of the policemen to forgive the leadership of sit-in or it was other way around? He said that FIRs could only be withdrawn against the leadership of Faizabad sit-in if injured policemen forgive them.
The IHC bench asked the AGP to apprise the court about the losses occurred due to the sit-in and who was responsible for damaging public property. The AGP replied that the government is already working on this and a report would be submitted to the court by next date of hearing.
The court suggested two options to the attorney general; one, that so-called agreement may be referred to joint session of the Parliament for its appreciation, joint statement and to weigh it, on the touchstone of the Constitution and law of the land, second, to be placed before the federal cabinet including mediators, for same purpose. Next hearing of this matter would be on January 12, 2018.