Top Legal Official Says FCC, Petitioner Misunderstood Imran Khan’s ‘Release Force’
As the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) is set to launch an agitation campaign demanding the release of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has fixed 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 May 9 riots.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan will hear the two petitions on July 29.
The first constitutional petition was filed under Article 175 E of the Constitution by Islamabad-based advocate Malik Zaheer Ahmed through advocate Ali Nawaz Kharal.
The petition seeks a declaration that the formation or mobilization of the so-called ‘Imran Khan/rihai Liberation Force’ is prohibited and that any attempt to constitute, organize or mobilize any such private force or militia would be illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of 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 regarding the formation of PTI founder Imran Khan’s ‘liberation force’. The matter is now listed for hearing after almost three months.
According to the petition, on February 18, the KP Chief Minister made a public statement widely circulated in print, electronic and social media, announcing his intention to form a force described as “Imran Khan Liberation Force”, also called “Imran Khan Rehai Force”, aimed at securing the release of the PTI founder, who is incarcerated in connection with various criminal cases and whose convictions have been upheld 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 contends that Article 5 of the Constitution imposes on every citizen, including public office holders, the fundamental duty to remain loyal to the State and to respect the Constitution and the law, and that any action contrary to this is ultra vires the Constitution.
A senior legal official believes that the FCC and the petitioner misunderstood Imran Khan’s ‘release force’.
In fact, it is Imran Khan’s ‘liberation movement’ and there is no intention of creating a militia for this purpose, he adds. He clarified that it has no connection with the provincial government.
Meanwhile, the same court will also consider the petition filed by the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC), seeking transfer of the criminal case regarding the attack on Radio Pakistan Peshawar from KP to a competent anti-terrorism court in the Federal Capital Territory of Islamabad or any other province, in the interest of justice, in view of the alleged political pressure and executive interference which have compromised the prospects of a fair trial.
The FCC, after hearing Radio Pakistan’s petition on March 24, issued a restraining order on the removal of the May 9 records.
A senior official of the KP legal department, speaking to The Express PK Press Club, said he was surprised that the FCC had passed a ban order when the KP government was yet to file an application with the ATC, adding that there should first be a cause of action.
“It would have been better if the FCC had heard from the KP prosecutor before issuing the restraining order,” he added.
Regarding the KP cabinet’s decision to withdraw all cases on May 9, he said the cabinet had only decided to withdraw “politically motivated cases” and cases lacking clear evidence against the accused.
He also said that there were a total of 29 terrorism-related cases in KP, of which 23 have already been resolved. Likewise, 319 cases related to the May 9 incidents have been filed in regular courts, of which 285 have already been tried.
Regarding the transfer of ATA files from one province to another, the official maintained that it is the responsibility of the chief justice concerned to pass such an order under the law.
He said that the mechanism regarding the transfer of 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 answers from the defendants without first ruling on the admissibility of the requests.
In the past, the Supreme Court has been criticized for exercising its jurisdiction in the public interest without deciding on the admissibility of petitions. The CS was also questioned about his involvement in political controversies.
Interestingly, there is no official notification regarding Imran Khan’s ‘liberation force’. Dozens of PTI-related cases have been transferred from the Supreme Court to the FCC. However, these cases have not yet been scheduled for hearing.
The Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act is still applicable to the Supreme Court to ensure transparency of the powers of the Chief Justice in fixing cases and training judges.
On the other hand, the CJ is the master of the FCC list. The chief justice’s powers to decide cases and constitute benches are not regulated by the FCC.
It is interesting to note that two-member panels hear cases related to the interpretation of the law and the Constitution. Earlier, political parties had expressed concerns over the lack of representation of all provinces on the benches handling constitutional affairs.
Despite having 22,746 pending cases, only seven judges are currently serving at the FCC.
FCC judges also face a “perception battle” since they were appointed by the federal government, which is expected to be the primary litigator before the court.
The challenge now facing judges is to demonstrate that they do not have an “executive” mind and will dispense justice “without fear or favor.” The senior bars who have challenged the 26th Constitutional Amendment are not interested in filing petitions against the 27th Amendment.
