In a parallel decision,
the court announced its intention to charge city Deputy Commissioner (DC) Irfan
Nawaz Memon and a senior superintendent of police (SSP) with contempt of court.
Both Afridi and Gulzar had
been apprehended by the police in connection with the violent incidents that
occurred on May 9.
This judgment came one day
after the IHC had issued show-cause notifications to DC Memon, Inspector
General Dr Akbar Nasir Khan, the city's chief commissioner, and other police
officials for what was deemed "criminal contempt of court." They were
accused of abusing their authority to obstruct justice and divert the course of
justice.
The court had called for
written responses from these officials to explain why they should not face
punishment for their perceived obstruction of justice.
The detention of Afridi
initially took place on May 16 at his residence in Islamabad, based on Section
3 of the MPO Ordinance from 1960. Subsequently, he was rearrested on May 30
under the same ordinance, shortly after his release from prison.
On August 3, the Lahore
High Court's Rawalpindi bench granted Afridi bail, but he was reapprehended by
Rawalpindi police soon after his release from Adiala jail. His lawyer then
submitted a petition to the IHC requesting his release and the annulment of the
MPO order.
Meanwhile, on August 9,
Gulzar was allegedly abducted by Islamabad police. Her mother subsequently
filed a petition in the IHC, asserting that her daughter's arrest was illegal
and violated several articles of the Constitution. This petition called for the
police to produce Gulzar in court.
During the hearing, IHC
Justice Babar Sattar oversaw the pleas of both Afridi and Gulzar, seeking
responses from the summoned officials, as directed by the court order issued
the previous day.
DC Memon appeared in court
on behalf of the district magistrate, joined by IG Khan and the chief
commissioner. The PTI leaders were also present, accompanied by their counsel
Sher Afzal Marwat.
After assessing the
responses provided by DC Memon and the SSP, Justice Sattar judged their replies
as "unsatisfactory" and decided to charge both officials with
contempt of court in the upcoming hearing.
Justice Sattar also
instructed IG Khan to furnish the names of the station house officer (SHO) and
the district police officer (DPO) associated with Afridi's case. Consequently,
show-cause notices were ordered to be issued to both of these police officials.
The court lifted the MPO
orders against both PTI leaders, resulting in their release, yet they were
confined to the limits of the capital city.
Additionally, the court
directed Afridi and Gulzar to refrain from making statements on mainstream or
social media throughout the ongoing case.
Justice Sattar emphasized
that if any untoward incidents occurred involving either Afridi or Gulzar, the
responsibility would fall on IG Khan and the chief commissioner.
Consequently, the hearing
was adjourned for a period of two weeks.
During the proceedings,
the Islamabad DC initially discussed the violent events of May 9 across various
cities. However, Justice Sattar intervened, instructing him to focus solely on
Islamabad and read aloud his order.
The DC revealed that the
Intelligence Bureau (IB) had warned of a potential attack by Afridi on the
district courts.
Justice Sattar posed
questions regarding Afridi's ability to orchestrate such an attack while being
incarcerated, asking if he had access to media and mobile phones. He further
questioned the actions taken by the prison administration to prevent such
activities.
DC Memon responded, citing
intelligence reports that indicated Afridi's involvement in incitement and
alleged plans to attack the district courts. He claimed that Afridi's name also
emerged in connection with a campaign against the judiciary.
Justice Sattar then
inquired how Afridi could incite individuals from within jail. DC Memon relied
on intelligence reports, asserting that he relied on these reports for
information.
DC Memon proceeded to read
aloud the IB and Special Branch (SB) reports. Justice Sattar inquired if any
court had upheld an MPO order issued within the past three months.
Justice Sattar cautioned
DC Memon about the possibility of facing up to six months in prison for
contempt of court.
Regarding Afridi's arrest,
the judge inquired about the source of information that led to his
apprehension. The SHO was subsequently summoned to the stand.
The judge asked the SHO
about the information he possessed regarding Afridi's alleged plans. The police
official stated that he was not the SHO at that time, clarifying that someone
else held the position.
Noting this, Justice
Sattar permitted the police official to leave the stand and requested
information about the DPO at that time.
The judge sought details
from the DPO about the alleged plan. However, the DPO mentioned being on
holiday during that period.
Justice Sattar questioned
the DPO about the events in Islamabad on May 8, a day before PTI chairman Imran
Khan's arrest, which led to nationwide violent incidents.
During the hearing, IG Dr
Khan appeared in court and explained that actions were taken based on potential
risks prior to incidents. He asserted that maintaining law and order was the
rationale behind their actions.
Justice Sattar criticized
the Special Branch's report, characterizing it as a joke. He asked IG Khan if
any of those allegedly incited by Afridi had been apprehended, to which Khan
replied that they were pursuing the mastermind.
The judge remarked that
the intelligence reports mocked the police system, and he directed IG Khan to
submit a detailed report on the matter.
Justice Sattar then
questioned DC Memon about his response to the contempt of court notice issued
the previous day, to which he responded affirmatively.
The court highlighted the
similarities between the MPO orders issued on May 16 and August 8, and declared
the May 16 order illegal. Consequently, DC Memon's responses to the notice were
deemed inadequate, leading to his indictment for contempt of court in the next
hearing.
The SSP was also called to
the stand, and his counsel argued that the reasons for declaring the first MPO
order illegal differed, citing the order's timing in relation to detention.
Justice Sattar critiqued
the handling of the situation, accusing the officials of turning the situation
into a farce by issuing conflicting orders.
Subsequently, the judge
decided to indict the SSP as well in the next hearing and ordered IG Khan to
provide the names of the SHO and DPO linked to Afridi's case, along with
issuing show-cause notices to both officials.
The court requested the
jail superintendent to provide records of the meetings Afridi had held during
his time at Adiala Jail. Additionally, it sought the notification that granted
DC Memon the authority to issue the MPO order.
Justice Sattar questioned
the presence of such a notification, stating that if it wasn't available,
further arguments would be unnecessary.
Addressing Afridi, the
judge inquired if he had a residence in Islamabad, to which Afridi confirmed.
0 Comments