A senior legal official believes that both the FCC and the petitioner misinterpreted Imran Khan’s “liberation force.”
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 scheduled hearing of two separate cases: one challenging the formation of the “liberation force” by the PTI founder, and the other challenging the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP) government’s decision to withdraw cases related to the 9/9 riots. May.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan will entertain both the petitions on July 29.
The first constitutional petition was 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 liberation force/rihai” is prohibited, and that any attempt to constitute, organize or mobilize such a force or private militia would be illegal, unconstitutional and would violate Articles 5, 17 and 256 of the Constitution as well as the Private Military Organizations (Abolition and Prohibition) Act, 1973.
On April 1, the same court sought a response from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi within ten days on the formation of PTI founder Imran Khan’s “liberation force”. Now the matter is ready for hearing after almost three months.
According to the petition, on February 18, the KP Chief Minister made a public statement that was widely circulated in print, electronic and social media announcing the intention to form a force described as “Imran Khan Liberation Force”, also known as “Imran Khan Rehai Force”, aimed at securing the release of the PTI founder, who is imprisoned in connection with several criminal cases and has convictions confirmed by competent courts.
The petitioner expressed concern that similar terminology used in the past 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 People’s Party, and militant elements previously attributed to the Muttahida Qaumi Movement.
The petition maintains that Article 5 of the Constitution imposes on every citizen, including public office holders, the fundamental duty to remain loyal to the State and respect the Constitution and the law, and any action contrary to this is ultra vires the Constitution.
A senior legal official believes that both the FCC and the petitioner misinterpreted Imran Khan’s “liberation force.”
In reality, this is Imran Khan’s “liberation force movement” and there is no intention to establish a militia force for this purpose, he added. He clarified that he has no connection with the provincial government.
Meanwhile, the same court will also take up the petition filed by the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC), seeking transfer of the criminal case relating to the attack on KP’s Radio Pakistan Peshawar 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 pressures and executive interference that have undermined the prospects of a fair trial.
The FCC, upon hearing Radio Pakistan’s petition on March 24, passed a restraining order regarding the withdrawal of the May 9 cases.
A senior KP Law Department official, speaking to The Express PAkGazette, expressed surprise that the FCC has passed a restraining order when the KP government is yet to file an application at the ATC, adding that there should be a cause of action first.
“It would have been better if the FCC had listened to the KP Prosecutor’s Office before passing the restraining order,” he added.
Regarding the KP cabinet’s decision to withdraw all cases from May 9, he stated that the cabinet only decided to withdraw “politically motivated cases” and cases that lack clear evidence against the accused.
He also said that in the KP there are a total of 29 cases related to terrorism, of which 23 have already been decided. Likewise, 319 cases related to the incidents of May 9 were filed in the ordinary justice system, of which 285 have already been decided.
On the transfer of ATA cases from one province to another, the official maintained that it is the responsibility of the Chief Justice concerned to pass such an order as per law.
He said the mechanism for transferring cases from one province to another is already provided for in the law.
The lawyers question the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) to request responses from the defendants without first deciding on the maintainability of the petitions.
In the past, the Supreme Court has been criticized for exercising public interest jurisdiction without deciding the maintainability of petitions. The CS was also questioned for 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 not yet been set for hearing.
The Supreme Court Practices and Procedures Act remains applicable in the Supreme Court to ensure transparency in the powers of the Chief Justice with respect to fixing cases and forming tribunals.
On the other hand, the Chief Justice owns the FCC list. The chief justice’s powers to settle cases and form courts are not regulated at the FCC.
Interestingly, there are two-member courts that hear cases related to the interpretation of the law and the Constitution. Previously, political parties had expressed concern about the lack of representation of all provinces in the courts that hear constitutional matters.
Although there are 22,746 cases pending, only seven judges currently serve on the FCC.
The FCC judges also face a “perception battle” since they were appointed by the federal government, which is expected to be the main litigant before the court.
The challenge now facing judges is to demonstrate that they do not have an “executive mindset” and will dispense justice “without fear or favor.” The colleges that challenged the 26th Constitutional Amendment are not interested in filing petitions against the 27th Amendment.
