LAHORE, Feb 14: The State claimed before the Lahore High Court on Friday that the Security of Pakistan Act 1952, invoked to detain Dr Ahmad Javed Khwaja and his family members, was still in force.

On the last hearing, Justice Javed Buttar had inquired about the legal status of the act, following an argument of petitioner’s counsel that it was repealed by the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance 1971.

Deputy Attorney General Sher Zaman Khan, while rejecting the arguments of the defence council, argued that even the 1971 ordinance was not the latest law against anti-state activities since it had also been repealed by the Defence of Pakistan (Repeal) Ordinance on Sept 15, 1977.

He submitted that the 1952 act was valid as it still existed on the statute book and had never been withdrawn. It could not have been repealed by subsequent laws since it was the original law covering anti-state activities, claimed the DAG.

According to the DAG, a law could only be repealed when its latest version was in conflict with the previous one. Since the 1977 ordinance was not repugnant to the 1952 act, the latter would be assumed in force, he submitted.

Punjab Advocate General Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, while arguing the case on behalf of the provincial government, supported the contentions of the DAG with regard to the validity of the 1952 act. He argued that this act had come up for scrutiny before the Supreme Court as well as the Federal Shariat Court and had never been declared outdated or repealed.

The AG alleged that the five detainees had confessed to having close links with Al Qaeda during interrogation, which did constitute a cognizable offence.

He submitted that the recovery of Sudanese and Saudi nationals’ passports from the residence of detainees was part of the concrete evidence of their alleged support for Al Qaeda. The AG further submitted that the State was fully authorised to initiate action against them under the 1952 act, and their detention could not be questioned on this account.

He rejected the argument of petitioner’s counsel that the allegations levelled against the detainees were vague. The grounds of detention provided by the State had been mentioned with absolute clarity and those had been further supported by the reports of the provincial and federal governments, the AG claimed.

He argued that the burden of proof was now on the detainees, who had failed to prove their innocence so far. He requested the court to dismiss the petition against their detention since the State had concrete evidence of detainees’ anti-state activities. Their detention, he said, was a lawful act taken in the best interest of the country.

The proceedings would resume on Feb 17, when petitioners’ counsel would present his point of view on the arguments of the DAG and the AG.