PESHAWAR: A Peshawar Substantial Courtroom bench has declared as unlawful the detention of seven associates of the Pashtun Tahaffuz Motion (PTM) by the district administration of Tank and South Waziristan districts and ordered their release, if not demanded in any other case.
The two-member bench, consisting of Justice Mussarat Hilali and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, on Friday acknowledged writ petitions submitted by the detainees demanding their detention under part 3 of the MPO by the two deputy commissioners anxious.
The petitioners are: Arif Wazir, Abdullah Nangyal, Rehmat Shah Mehsud, Idress Pashteen, Bilal Pashteen, Zubair Wazir and Yousaf Mehsud.
Both deputy commissioners experienced invoked section 3 of the MPO on unique dates and purchased detention of the petitioners for one particular thirty day period.
The administrations of Tank and South Waziristan claimed that the petitioners were performing in a manner prejudicial to public peace and tranquillity.
Senior counsel Shahab Khattak appeared for the petitioners and contended that the deputy commissioners experienced overstepped their powers under the MPO. He argued that the two DCs had not used their “independent minds” and as a substitute issued “stereotyped orders” beneath segment 3 of the MPO.
Mr Khattak argued that the impugned orders were in violation of elementary rights guaranteed in the constitution. He contended that in circumstance of any violation of a legislation, the condition organizations were at liberty to sign-up FIRs in opposition to a suspect, but they cannot deprive any citizen of his liberty, flexibility of movement and expression.
In case of violation of any legislation or commission of any penal offence, the govt could adopt a legal recourse, but any this sort of detention beneath MPO on “pretext of prevention was past the law”.
Mr Khattak explained the administration’s contention that the detainees belonged to PTM was not a legitimate ground for detention.
The PTM was neither a proscribed organisation nor was it a terrorist outfit, Mr Khattak noticed.
He argued that simply currently being a member of an organisation was not a crime which could appeal to part 3 of the MPO.
The counsel contended that all these impugned orders have been politically inspired and not based on facts.
Printed in Dawn, July 20th, 2019