Top Stories

Wednesday, July 15, 2009
By Tariq Butt

ISLAMABAD: The Punjab government’s abrupt decision to dissociate itself from the Hafiz Mohammad Saeed case in the Supreme Court was meant to protest federal authorities’ inability to come out with evidence against the outlawed Jamaatud Daawa (JuD) chief in order to put him under preventive detention, it is reliably learnt.

The provincial move, taken in desperation, worked and the federal government promptly acted and showed whole-hearted willingness to defend the appeal against Hafiz Saeed’s release by the Lahore High Court (LHC).

However, Attorney General Latif Khosa tried to play down the Punjab government’s option. “It was the result of some misunderstanding and lack of communication between us,” he told The News.

But a senior Punjab government official said that provincial Advocate General Raza Farooq met Khosa on Monday and plainly told him that since the provincial administration has no proof against the JuD chief, the attorney general should personally appear before the Supreme Court bench, hearing the appeal, and present the material before it to place Hafiz Saeed under detention.

“Our plea was taken lightly and instead of personally appearing before the apex court, the attorney general sent his deputy.” In protest, the official said, the Punjab government decided to take back at once its appeal against the LHC ruling. He said that after this decision, Interior Minister Rehman Malik talked to the attorney general, who then personally appeared before the court.

However, Khosa said that it was not necessary that he should argue each and every case in superior courts. He said the federal government had stood by the provincial appeal against the LHC judgment. “We have a supportive role, and it was the Punjab government that had placed Hafiz Saeed under detention, fearing that his free movement is likely to breach peace.”

The attorney general said he did not understand why the Punjab government chose to dissociate itself from its own appeal. He said that the UN Security Council resolution that had demanded detention of certain Jihadi figures was bound to be received by the federal government, which, as per the standard procedure, forwarded it to all the concerned departments for implementation.

Khosa said that the Punjab government vigorously argued for Hafiz Saeed’s detention before the LHC review board and got two extensions on the ground that it came out with sufficient material, rationalizing JuD leader’s preventive confinement.

Asked about the Punjab government’s filing of an application with the Supreme Court to withdraw the appeal, the attorney general expressed ignorance about it and said he and Raza Farooq together appeared before the bench and requested the court for having the same opinion to adjourn the hearing of the appeal till Wednesday.

“The matter will be sorted out in a day or so,” he said, adding that everybody has to look at the local and international implications of the Hafiz Saeed case. He also referred to Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani’s departure for Egypt on the day when the faux pas was created.

Hafiz Saeed’s release by the LHC for want of substantial material to back up his continued preventive detention was a foregone conclusion since word go for the simple reason that the Punjab government has no solid grounds to keep him behind the bars for an indefinite period. Even a person no less than the then Inspector General of Police (IGP) of Punjab, Shaukat Javed, had stated on December 13, 2008, shortly after the confinement of the Jihadi leaders in the wake of the UN resolution that they would be let off soon if no evidence about their involvement in the Mumbai terrorist attack was received from India. “The Punjab government was provided with the names of seven top JuD leaders for putting them under the preventive detention.”

The onus of justifying the preventive detention of any person for cogent reasons lies on the government. “The requirements of the law have to be strictly met and a mere UN resolution would not suffice to keep a person under detention,” said a legal expert, adding that under the Constitution the liberty of any person could not be restricted without any reason. “If someone is detained a case has to be registered against him under the law.” The government had invoked Article 10 of the Constitution while arresting the JuD leadership following Mumbai attacks and after the adoption of the UN resolution.