January 11, 2003	Saturday	Ziqa'ad 7, 1423

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)

LAHORE, Jan 10: Dr Ahmad Javed Khwaja and four of his family members approached the interior ministry on Friday through a representation, challenging their three-month detention under the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952.

The Lahore High Court, seeking a report from the state to justify the detention, had observed on Tuesday that Dr Ahmad Javed Khwaja, Ahmad Naveed Khwaja, Dr Umar Karar, Dr Khizar Ali and Muhammad Usman could file a representation against their detention before the authorities concerned by Jan 14.

The representation copy forwarded to the interior ministry secretary has been signed by Ahmad Nadeem Khwaja, the brother of Ahmad Javed Khwaja, on behalf of the detainees. The copy contains a note that the jail authorities did not allow the detainees to sign this copy. Therefore, Nadeem Khwaja had to sign it for them.

Pervez Inayat Malik, defence counsel for Dr Ahmad Javed Khwaja and Ahmad Naveed Khwaja, in the case before an anti-terrorism court, told Dawn on Friday that another copy of the representation signed by the five detainees in the Central Jail, Lahore, had been handed over to the jail superintendent who would forward it to the Punjab Inspector-General (Prisons) for its transmission to the interior ministry.

The interior ministry has been requested to order the release of the five detainees forthwith since the grounds of detention are unfounded and vague.

The detainees pleaded that their detention orders were signed by a section officer of the interior ministry, Irfan Jadoon Khan, who was not authorized to do so. “A section officer could not pass the detention orders under the Security of Pakistan Act 1952,” argued the detainees.

They claimed that neither the authority ordering their detention was clearly identified nor was there any indication on record how such authority had satisfied itself about the “reasonableness” of the grounds of their detention.

“Under a settled law, only a high court concerned had the jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness and sufficiency of the grounds of arrest not the federal government,” the detainees submitted in the representation.

They said that the grounds of detention were violative of the Article 10 of the Constitution. The Article requires the grounds of detention to be absolutely clear and specific to enable the detainees to make a representation.

It was argued that the grounds provided were vague and in-definite leaving them with no room to defend themselves properly.

The detainees said that their detention orders were highly discriminatory since the federal government had not disclosed what anti-state activities had been committed by them and that it had not come up with any proof in this regard.