Faizabad agreement 'can't be legally justified' is unconstitutional: IHC

[Devil Soul]

IHC says terms of Faizabad agreement 'can't be legally justified'
Mohammad ImranDecember 04, 2017
8

1

Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday questioned the legal standing of the agreement reached between the government and Faizabad protest leaders, saying that none of the terms could be legally justified.

"How can cases filed under the Terrorism Act be dismissed?" he asked during a hearing at the IHC regarding the recent sit-in at the Faizabad Interchange in the capital.

After the weeks-long protest that had virtually paralysed the capital, the government and leaders of Tehreek-i-Labaik Ya Rasool Allah (TLY) reached an agreement on November 26 in which the former conceded to the latter's demands — including dropping all the cases against the protesters. The IHC, however, had noted a "number of serious objections on the terms of agreement" and expressed its displeasure over the army’s role in the settlement made with the protesters.

"Who is the army to adopt a mediator's role?" Justice Siddiqui had inquired in the previous hearing. "Where does the law assign this role to a major general?"

ADVERTISEMENT
Read: List of demands put forward by TLY and accepted by govt for ending the Faizabad protest

The IHC recommended that the legal standing of the agreement should be discussed in a joint session of the parliament, DawnNews reported.

Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Ashtar Ausaf, however, disagreed with the recommendation, saying that since the high court had taken suo motu notice of the matter, the judiciary should oversee it. He had appeared in court on Justice Siddiqui's orders.

The AGP requested the court to grant him some time to determine the legal position of the army's role as an arbitrator in the negotiations, saying that he was not in the country and needed time to prepare the report. In a written order on November 27, the IHC bench had directed the attorney general to help the court determine how the armed forces could act as an arbitrator.

The Intelligence Bureau also presented a report on the botched operation against the protesters by the police in court today while the chief commissioner of Islamabad submitted a detailed report on the protest.

Meanwhile, special assistant to the prime minister, Barrister Zafarullah Khan, excused himself from IHC's order to prepare a report on the sit-in.

On November 27, the high court had tasked Zafarullah with filing a report on "what happened [during the sit-in] where and when" within 10 days.

The judge remarked that the protesters were guilty of blasphemy, pointing to the language used by the protest leaders and participants during the sit-in.

The hearing was adjourned until January 12.

 

[Devil Soul]

Agreement between Faizabad protesters, state is unconstitutional: IHC
By Hasnaat Mailk
Published: December 4, 2017
43SHARES
SHARE TWEET EMAIL

The court expected the army would probe into the matter that how the name of the COAS was used in it. PHOTO: FILE

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday declared that the Faizabad protesters committed blasphemy and the state surrendered before them.

IHC judge Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui while hearing a case regarding the sit-in protest observed that each section of the agreement between the Faizabad protesters and the state was unconstitutional.

IHC judge asks why army officers played mediator

On November 6, hundreds of Tehreek-e-Labbaik Ya Rasool Allah (TLY) supporters camped at the Faizabad Interchange in Islamabad calling for the resignation of Law Minister Zahid Hamid, who they blamed for a hastily-abandoned change in the oath of elected representatives. The group called off its nationwide protests on November 27, after the government met its demand and accepted Hamid’s resignation.

The IHC bench, on Monday, said the court expected the Army to probe into Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Javed Bajwa’s name being used in the agreement.

The high court, which had been questioning the role of the armed forces as mediator in the entire episode, gave two options to Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf who was present in the courtroom — to decide whether the matter related to the agreement should be referred to the parliament or the government top officials, including the army, should deliberate over the legality of the agreement. The AGP opted for the second option.

Justice Siddiqui was also bewildered at how the state could abolish terrorist cases against the same protesters who had paralysed the capital and brutally tortured police officials.

“Is the police not a part of the state? You should pay a four-month salary to the police officials for their work” he said.

The IHC judge also made clear that the court would not endorse the agreement made between the protesters and the state, saying the government accepted the demand of only one side and that the army played the role of a moderator in negotiating the contentious deal.

The government authorities including the mediator (army chief) should deliberate on the agreement, recommended the IHC bench.

On this, Ashtar Ausaf sought time to look into the matter. He also informed the court that the matter was also sub judice in the Supreme Court and, therefore, the IHC should wait for the outcome of its proceedings.

Faizabad sit-in: The trail of 21 days

Justice Siddiqui said, “Nobody’s life is safe in the country.” The IHC judge also ordered for the AGP to stop the issuance of fatwas (religious decrees), from mosques and madrassas, declaring anyone a non-Muslim.

The IHC later adjourned the hearing until January 12.

 

[MBT 3000]

thats coming from a high Court not from the supreme Court so not illegal

 

[Safriz]

The IHC justice should be given "Dik of the year award".
Wherever ATA 1997 is invoked the army has full police powers and that includes power to mediate.
His verbal diarrhoea against the army has no legal or logical justifications.
The cases filed under ATA 1997 were by Government and Government has the right to retract any cases they file,same as anyone else can do the same.

 

[PakSword]

What do we expect from a judge who is a close relative of Irfan Siddiqui (NS's Adviser)?

 

[El Sidd]

Interesting...............

Very interesting...............

 

[oOo]

Interesting...............

Very interesting...............

Since agreement is unconstitutional, all protesters should be made to protest again at the same location and drama should be resumed from where it ended.

 

[PakSword]

Since agreement is unconstitutional, all protesters should be made to protest again at the same location and drama should be resumed from where it ended.

Haha.. Good one..

And government should facilitate them to reach to Dharna place just like it did last time..

 

[oOo]

Haha.. Good one..

And government should facilitate them to reach to Dharna place just like it did last time..

And rangers need to take the money back from protesters which they distributed while setting them free. Its a must !!

 

[El Sidd]

Since agreement is unconstitutional, all protesters should be made to protest again at the same location and drama should be resumed from where it ended.

that is a valid demand indeed but that won't probably happen but the story is far from over. i think a certain someone only has 2 cards left and one kitchen sink at it. Let's see how they roll them out.

 

[PakSword]

And rangers need to take the money back from protesters which they distributed while setting them free. Its a must !!

I don't think they will give back the money.. Rangers should file a case in IHC in front of the same judge to get the money back.

 

[El Sidd]

I don't think they will give back the money.. Rangers should file a case in IHC in front of the same judge to get the money back.

Is he the same judge who went full retard while hearing the infamous BHENSA case?

 

[313ghazi]

"How can cases filed under the Terrorism Act be dismissed?" he asked during a hearing at the IHC regarding the recent sit-in at the Faizabad Interchange in the capital.

This happens when you make a mockery of your own profession. How can a peaceful protest be called terrorism? How does it fit in the legal definition? This "judgement" was no different to how the Israeli's and Indians call the political activities of the Palestinians and the Kashmiri's as "terrorism". The fact of the matter is, no threats were made, nobody was armed - it was a sit in; not a hostage situation!

This judge and his colleagues who passed such rubbish verdicts have been caught with their pants down and now are desperate. At the behest of their political friends they happily registered terrorism charges against political protestors and then when the same friends struck a deal with they, they're left with egg on their face.

His next response is just as stupid. He is a judge a legal professional, an expert at law. He wants parliament (a political organisation) to pass judgement on a legal issue. It's like a kid losing at ludo who kicks the table to move all the pieces!

 

[Musafir117]

I can read what’s written in the “ back screen “ not walls.

 

[PakSword]

Is he the same judge who went full retard while hearing the infamous BHENSA case?

Yes, and he has also served as advocate of the Lal Mosque Imam.. plus he is a close relative of Irfan Siddiqui.