KARACHI: State, defence counsels submit arguments: Extradition case
By Our Staff Reporter
KARACHI, June 18: The federal government has to meet the country’s international obligations and is entitled to approach a constitutional court to question any act done or proceedings taken in derogation of its undertakings under a treaty, Attorney-General Makhdoom Ali Khan submitted before a division bench of the Sindh High Court on Wednesday.
He was replying to the arguments advanced by Advocate Syed Saeeduddin Nasir against maintainability of a writ petition filed by the federation against a Karachi magistrate’s decision to discharge Haris Hassan, a Pakistani American, in a preliminary inquiry held under the Extradition Act, 1972.
The bench, which consisted of Justices Mushir Alam and S. Ali Aslam Jafri, adjourned the hearing for further arguments on Thursday.
Mr Nasir had earlier argued that Article 199 of the Constitution was meant to protect the rights of individuals against the federal and provincial governments and functionaries working under them. Magistrate Sadaf Asif, who exonerated his client (Haris Hassan), was assigned the inquiry by the government and it could not assail an act done by its own appointee.
How could the government be an aggrieved party in proceedings instituted by it? he asked.
The bench pointed out that a body corporate could also invoke the writ jurisdiction of high courts.
The AG maintained that the federation was not a monolithic structure and it comprised many federal, provincial and local authorities who could overstep their functions. It could seek a writ to a provincial government if a statute did not provide for right of appeal or revision.
The inquiry magistrate, who was appointed by the provincial government, misread the Extradition Act and exceeded her authority by declaring the accused ‘not guilty’.
The Act cast mutual obligations on the contracting parties and a country requested to extradite a fugitive offender was only to see whether there was a prima facie case against the accused on the face of the record.
The purpose was not to hold two trials in two different countries under two different legal systems yet the inquiry magistrate returned a verdict of ‘not guilty’.
Citing the example of former navy chief Mansoorul Haq, the AG submitted that the US authorities did not determine his guilt or innocence but handed over the former admiral to Pakistan’s National Accountability Bureau on the basis of the record made available to them. Haris was accused of kidnapping, rape and assault with intent to commit murder in Detroit, the state of Michigan, along with two others and warrants for his arrest were issued by a Detroit magistrate.
Co-accused Ali Tleis pleaded ‘no contest’ before a Detroit court and was convicted.
The other co-accused, Erik Muehlenbein, contested the charges against him but was found guilty by a jury of kidnapping and of two counts of first degree criminal sexual conduct (rape).
The AG said an inquiry under the Extradition Act was in the nature of commitment proceedings. The committal magistrate was not to determine guilt or innocence but to see whether the prosecution has a case that should be sent up for trial by a competent court.
