A larger bench of the Islamabad High Court, hearing a petition against the PTI’s protest and long march scheduled for September 27, sought affidavits from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa chief secretary and inspector general of police by Monday. The court allowed the parties to file rejoinders and said that, apart from the KP chief secretary and IG, other officials would not need to appear at the next hearing. Before the hearing, KP Chief Secretary Shahab Ali Shah, Additional IG Abbas Ahsan, Punjab Advocate General Barrister Zafarullah, the interior secretary, the Punjab IG and other officials reached the court.

The three-member bench was headed by Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar and included Justice Azam Khan and Justice Muhammad Asif. At the outset, the KP advocate general raised a preliminary objection to the Islamabad High Court’s jurisdiction. He said the court had been established under the Islamabad High Court Act and its jurisdiction was limited to Islamabad. According to him, issuing directions to officials from Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and KP did not fall within the court’s jurisdiction. He said separate high courts had been established for each province and Islamabad.

Islamabad was a territory rather than a province, which was why a separate act had been enacted for it. He added that judicial precedents established that a person should approach the court having jurisdiction over the relevant area. If one high court interfered in the jurisdiction of other provinces, he argued, the 18th Amendment would become ineffective. He requested the court to first determine whether it could hear the case before arguments on its maintainability were presented. Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar directed the KP advocate general to continue his arguments.

The advocate general also questioned whether the petitioner was an aggrieved party, saying that the alleged activity had not yet taken place. A heated exchange subsequently took place between him and the petitioner’s counsel. The advocate general said the petitioner had not presented arguments and that the attorney general had argued on the petitioner’s behalf. The petitioner’s counsel objected, saying he had argued the case and calling the statement inappropriate. The chief justice intervened and said the order from the first hearing contained the petitioner’s counsel’s arguments and that he should be allowed to speak.

The court later directed the petitioner’s counsel several times to remain silent. The KP advocate general said that if the Islamabad High Court entertained the petition, the legislature’s intent would be undermined. He said the court’s suo motu powers had ended and that public-interest petitions were now creating a trend of suo motu proceedings. He argued that the petitioner had targeted one political party, whereas multiple parties were participating in the long march. The party against which action was being sought had not been made a party to the case and should be included.

The chief justice asked whether the party was conducting the long march. The advocate general replied that he was only assisting the court. The chief justice then asked whether he had consulted the KP chief minister and whether he represented the KP government. The advocate general replied that he represented the provincial government. Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar remarked that the chief minister had two “hats”—one as chief minister and the other as a member of a political party. The advocate general replied that he could not have become chief minister had he not been a party member.

At the court’s direction, he read relevant portions of the chief minister’s oath and said that the chief minister had made no statement against the Constitution, law or the integrity of the country. The chief justice directed him to read Article 5 of the Constitution and remarked that the chief minister should be more loyal to the state. The advocate general replied that the chief minister was highly loyal to the state and had made no statement against the Constitution, law or the state.

The chief justice asked why the chief minister had made the statement, clarifying that he was referring to the chief minister rather than the political party. He said the chief minister had already taken an oath of loyalty to the state and could himself respond to the statement concerning the political gathering. The KP chief secretary told the court that the chief minister could answer for his statement himself. The chief justice asked why protests always moved towards Islamabad.

The chief secretary described it as a political activity, prompting the chief justice to ask whether an assault on the Federal capital could also be called political activity. The court subsequently sought affidavits from the KP chief secretary and IG. During the hearing, the KP advocate general requested that the KP chief minister and PTI also be made parties to the case. He said those against whom a writ was being sought had not been included as parties. He referred to statements by Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz and Prime Minister’s Adviser on Political Affairs Rana Sanaullah.

Credit: Independent News Pakistan (INP)