|
|
|
| 10 February 2004 | Tuesday | 18 Zilhaj 1424 |
Govt ready to disclose details in camera: AG - Petitions relating to scientists' detention
ISLAMABAD, Feb 9: The federal government said on Monday it was ready to disclose before the Rawalpindi bench of Lahore High Court the details about the nuclear proliferation controversy, provided the hearing was conducted in camera.
Attorney-General Makhdoom Ali Khan stated before the court that the government was ready to disclose the sensitive details to the court, but in camera.
The attorney-general was summoned by the court after it failed to get a written response from the government on habeas corpus petitions filed by relatives of six officials of the KRL, even after six hearings in over a month.
The court, however, insisted that it would first like to get a written response from the government before deciding if it would like to see the secret details.
Justice Maulvi Anwarul Haq, senior judge of the two-member bench, asked the attorney-general: "Why is the government avoiding the court when the whole world is aware of the details?" The AG said the government was willing to come up with everything it had but it would be difficult to disclose such sensitive information in the open court.
Asked why had the government not submitted a written reply to the points raised in the petitions, the AG replied that the government had no hesitation in submitting a written reply and would require only one day for the purpose.
The AG, however, made it clear that the government would not be in a position to state all the sensitive details in the written reply as such a statement became part of public record.
The court comprising Justice Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Justice Mansoor Ahmad, adjourned the case till Wednesday and asked the federal government to submit its reply on Tuesday. The court, after receiving the written statement from the government, would decide whether to conduct proceedings in camera.
Those who have approached the court are Dr Mohammad Farooq, director KRL; Dr Nazeer Ahmad, chief engineer metallurgy department KRL; Brig (retd) Sajawal Khan, retired director general of KRL; Dr Naseemuddin, head of missile manufacturing KRL; Brig (retd) Mohammad Iqbal Tajwar, former Director-General Security KRL, and Maj (retd) Islamul Haq, principal staff officer of Dr A.Q. Khan.
Earlier, Deputy Attorney-General Chaudhry Tariq Mehmood asked the court to dispose of the petitions in the light of an order passed by the interior ministry on Jan 31, 2004, informing all the six detainees that they had been detained for three months because of their activities which were prejudicial to Pakistan's interests.
The official handed over copies of the order to the court which stated that the federal government, in exercise of its powers conferred by clause (b) of sub section (d) of Section III of the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, had detained these officials initially for three months.
The counsel representing the petitioners, Advocate Shah Khawar, Advocate Chaudhry Mohammad Ikram and Barrister Tariq Khokhar, stated that the detention order passed by the interior ministry was vague, and general in nature. They said the order had to be specific and the location of the detention must be notified. They said the detention orders were issued on Jan 31, 2004, whereas all of them had been taken into custody much before that date. Dr Mohammad Farooq had been arrested 71 days ago, they argued.
Barrister Tariq Khokhar stated that the government considered the SHO of Airport Police Station more reliable than judges of the high court as the former had been provided with all the information for registering the FIR. He said while the foreign and local media were being briefed on the whole controversy by senior government officials frequently, the court was being kept in complete darkness.
Earlier, the office of the LHC, Rawalpindi bench, refused to entertain a petition filed by a brother of the principal secretary to Dr A.Q. Khan, alleging that the architect of Pakistan's nuclear programme was in illegal detention and the court should order his production in the court.
The LHC office asked the petitioner to explain how the habeas corpus petition was maintainable when an FIR had been registered and, secondly, the petitioner had no locus standi to file the petition on behalf of Dr A.Q. Khan. Advocate Chaudhry Ikram said that he would again file the petition after removing the objections.
|
|
|
|