–Court says LHC has termed procedure of arrest of missing persons’ lawyer Inamur Rahim ‘invalid’
–AGP says LHC did not have authority to hear Rahim’s arrest case, misinterpreted the law
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday issued a notice to the attorney general of Pakistan (AGP) seeking explanation for the jurisdiction of Article 199.
A two-member bench of the apex court comprising Justice Mushir Alam and Justice Yahya Afridi heard the case against the release of Lieutenant Colonel (r) Inamur Rahim, a lawyer in several cases involving missing persons.
During the course of the proceedings, Justice Yahya Afridi said that the high court did not question the army’s arrest authority in the decision. The Lahore High Court (LHC) had termed the arrest procedure invalid, he added.
The deputy attorney general said that the high court was not authorised to hear the case against the arrest of Advocate Rahim and alleged that the LHC wrongly misinterpreted the law.
Justice Mushir Alam asked both the respondents to appear before the court on next date of hearing with proper preparation on legal points.
Later, the hearing of the case was adjourned till date in office.
On March 4, the apex court, after resuming hearing on a petition filed by the Ministry of Defence against the LHC decision directing for the immediate release of Rahim, had wondered how a civilian/retired army official could be court-martialled.
Earlier in January this year, a three-member bench, headed by Justice Mushir Alam and comprising Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Munib Akhtar, took up the petition against the LHC order which had declared Rahim’s detention “illegal”.
During the hearing on March, the SC had further asked the reasoning behind applying the Official Secrets Act, 1923, on a retired military officer. Additional Attorney General (AAG) Sajid Ilyas Bhatti had responded that the ex-military man had been released but was still under investigation.
Justice Alam had noted that the military had levelled serious allegations against the retired officer before releasing him. “He was not released on court orders,” he added. To which, AAG Bhatti affirmed that there were “other” reasons behind the release.
He had also directed the AAG to come prepared to explain whether a civilian can be court-martialed in light of Section 549 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Section 94 and 95 of the Pakistan Army Act 1952.
Lieutenant Colonel (r) Rahim, a petitioner in multiple cases of allegedly missing persons, was picked up from his residence by law enforcement officials in December last year. Subsequently, on Janurary 2, the Defence Ministry had informed the LHC that the retired officer was in the custody of its subordinate agency and that he was being probed for allegedly violating the Official Secrets Act, 1923 — the anti-espionage law.
Announcing its verdict on a petition on January 9, the LHC had termed his detention against the law and directed authorities to set him free. However, on January 11, the government had moved the apex court against the order, saying that the detainee is “part of a spy network”.
Subsequently, on January 22, the Defence Ministry had assured the apex court that Lieutenant Colonel (r) Rahim would be released when “certain conditions” are met.
