Senior lawyer believes both FCC and petitioner misunderstood Imran Khan’s ‘release power’
As the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) prepares to launch an agitation campaign demanding the release of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has set to hear two separate cases: one challenging the formation of the “liberation force” by the PTI founder, and the other challenging the Khyber-KPkhtunkhwa-related decision related to the decisions of the May-KPkhtunkhwa government. riot.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan will take up both the petitions on July 29.
First constitutional petition has been filed under Article 175 E of the Constitution by Islamabad-based lawyer Malik Zaheer Ahmed through lawyer Ali Nawaz Kharal.
The petition seeks a declaration that the formation or mobilization of the so-called “Imran Khan release/rihai force” is prohibited and that any attempt to establish, organize or mobilize such a private force or militia would be illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to Articles 5, 17 and 256 of the Constitution Act and the Private Military Organization and Prohibition. 1973.
The same bench on April 1 sought a response from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi within ten days regarding the formation of PTI founder Imran Khan’s “release force”. The case has now been taken up for hearing after almost three months.
According to the petition, on February 18, the KP Chief Minister issued a public statement that was widely circulated on print, electronic and social media announcing the intention to form a force described as “Imran Khan Release Force”, also referred to as “Imran Khan Rehai Force”, with the aim of securing the release of the PTI founder, who has been jailed in various criminal cases.
The petitioner expressed concern that similar terminology previously used by political parties had led to the emergence, or at least the perception, of militant wings linked to them, including groups such as the Al-Zulfiqar Organization, historically associated with the Pakistan Peoples Party, and militant elements previously attributed to the Muttahida Qaumi Movement.
The petition contends that Article 5 of the Constitution imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen, including public office holders, to remain loyal to the State and abide by the Constitution and the law, and any act contrary to this is unconstitutional.
A senior lawyer believes that both the FCC and the petitioner misunderstood Imran Khan’s “release power”.
In fact, it is Imran Khan’s “liberation force movement” and there is no intention to establish a militia force for this purpose, he adds. He clarified that it has no connection with the provincial government.
Meanwhile, the same bench will also take up a petition filed by the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC) seeking transfer of the criminal case related to the attack on Radio Pakistan Peshawar from KP to a competent anti-terrorism court in the Federal Capital Territory Islamabad or any other province in the interest of justice in view of the alleged political pressure and executive interference, which has probed for a judicial interference.
While hearing Radio Pakistan’s petition on 24 March, the FCC passed a stay order regarding the withdrawal of the cases on 9 May.
A senior official of the KP Law Department, speaking to The Express Pakinomist, expressed surprise that the FCC passed a restraining order as the KP government is yet to move an application in the ATC, adding that there should be a cause of action first.
“It would have been better if the FCC had heard KP’s prosecution before passing the restraining order,” he added.
Regarding the KP Cabinet’s decision to withdraw all May 9 cases, he stated that the government decided to withdraw only “politically motivated cases” and cases lacking clear evidence against the accused.
He also said that there were a total of 29 terror-related cases in KP, of which 23 have already been disposed of. Likewise, 319 cases relating to the incidents on 9 May were brought before ordinary courts, of which 285 have already been decided.
On the transfer of ATA cases from one province to another, the official argued that it is the domain of the Chief Justice concerned to pass such an order under the law.
He said the mechanism regarding transfer of cases from one province to another is already laid down in the law.
Lawyers are questioning the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) to seek answers from the respondents without first ruling on the maintainability of the petitions.
Earlier, the Supreme Court was criticized for exercising jurisdiction in public interest without deciding whether petitions were maintainable. The oversight committee was also questioned about its involvement in political controversies.
Interestingly, there is no official notification about Imran Khan’s “release force”. Dozens of PTI-related cases have been transferred from the Supreme Court to the FCC. However, these cases have yet to be processed.
The Supreme Court’s Practice and Administration Act continues to apply in the Supreme Court to ensure transparency in the Chief Justice’s powers regarding case fixation and the establishment of the courts.
On the other hand, the Chief Justice is the head of the watch in the FCC. The Chief Justice’s powers to order cases and form benches are not regulated in the FCC.
Interestingly, two-man benches deal with cases related to the interpretation of the law and the constitution. In the past, political parties had expressed concern over the lack of representation from all provinces on benches hearing constitutional matters.
Despite a case pendency of 22,746, only seven judges currently serve on the FCC.
The FCC judges also face a “battle of perception” since they were appointed by the federal government, which is expected to be the primary plaintiff before the court.
The challenge now facing the judges is to demonstrate that they are not “executive-minded” and will dispense justice “without fear or favour”. Superior Bars who challenged the 26th Amendment are not interested in filing petitions against the 27th Amendment.
