ISLAMABAD: The government and the military received a thorough dressing-down from the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday as Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui questioned how the army could act as a mediator between the government and a group that had committed an act of terrorism.

“You have put a question mark over civilian supremacy. What have you done?” the judge asked Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal during proceedings regarding the sit-in by religious parties that had paralysed the twin cities for two and a half weeks.

In a fiery hearing on Monday, Justice Siddiqui said the deal confirmed widely-held impressions about who was behind the sit-in and ordered the district administration, the Intelligence Bureau and Special Assistant to the Prime Minister Barrister Zafarullah Khan to submit separate reports on various aspects of the Khatm-i-Nubuwat issue that led up to the sit-in, as well as the identities of those backing the protest.

In its written order, the IHC bench also directed the attorney general to help the court determine how the armed forces could act as an arbitrator.

Justice Siddiqui furious at interior minister for ceding ‘civilian supremacy’

At the outset, when the Islamabad chief commissioner read out the text of the agreement between the government and the protesting Tehreek-i-Labbaik Ya Rasool Allah, the judge took issue with the military playing the role of mediator.

“Most alarming is that Maj Gen Faiz Hameed put signature as one through whom agreement arrived at. It is also very strange that efforts of Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa have been acknowledged in the following words: ‘This agreement materialised through the special efforts of chief of army staff and his team’,” the judge noted in his order.

“Prima facie, [the] role assumed by the top leadership of army is besides the Constitution and law of land. Armed forces, being part of the executive, cannot travel beyond its mandate bestowed upon it by the organic law of the country i.e. the Constitution.”

“Where is Raddul Fasaad and all those operations against the terrorists?” the bench remarked, adding that a clash between state institutions was harmful to the country.

During the hearing, the bench expressed its displeasure over the army’s alleged role in the settlement made with the protesters, remarking: “Army officers eager to participate in politics should first return their guns to the state, take retirement and then join politics”.

He also observed that it would have been impossible to stage such a sit-in near General Headquarters. Addressing the interior minister, the judge remarked that through this agreement, the federal government had laid bare the army’s role in this sit-in.

The order noted that “most abusive and filthy language was used against honourable judges of the Supreme Court, but the federal government and arbitrator did not bother to persuade the leadership of [Tehreek-i-Labbaik Ya Rasool Allah] to even tender an apology in this regard.”

During proceedings, the judge asked the minister why a major general was engaged to hold dialogue with those who had violated the law and committed an act of terrorism by blocking public roads.

This gave the impression that the civil administration was not capable of performing its lawful job and the army was the only institution which could handle such matters, he observed, and asked why the military had not been deployed under Article 245 of the Constitution to disperse the mob.

“We requisitioned the army, but they sought clarification on certain points, which have been addressed,” the minister replied, referring to a letter expressing certain apprehensions over the proposed operation against protesters, which was leaked to the media a couple of days ago.

He directed the Islamabad chief commissioner and IB to furnish reports on the failure of the Faizabad clearance operation and the identities of those who provided support, such as lethal weapons, tear gas and gas masks, to the protesters.

Justice Siddiqui raised many eyebrows when he remarked that he could be assassinated, or may end up joining the ranks of the missing persons, but it was his duty to speak the truth. “Everyone should know that there are no followers of Justice Munir in the courts anymore,” he said, referring to the former chief justice who gave legal cover to the dissolution of Pakistan’s first constituent assembly.

During the hearing, he also observed that the government was trying to save Minister of State for Information Technology Anusha Rehman by scapegoating Zahid Hamid. However, the minister insisted that it was not yet clear whether she had any role in the matter.

When the judge asked who had prepared the draft of the election law and the amended declaration, Mr Iqbal said it was a whole committee.

He also took issue with one of the clauses of the agreement between the government and protesters, which stated that the federal and provincial governments would compensate the losses incurred by protesters, asking why the state should do so.

“Had I not ordered the clearing of Faizabad Interchange, who would have been responsible for removing the protesters?” the judge inquired.

In response, Mr Iqbal said that while this was the responsibility of the civil administration, this particular protest was very complicated as it was based on a religious issue. “Had it been a political dispute, the situation would have been entirely different,” he said.

This prompted Justice Siddiqui to observe that the court had already saved the government last year, when the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf announced its intention to lock down the capital.

Addressing Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Sector Commander Arfan Shaheed Ramay, Justice Siddiqui said that the army should have sided with the government at any cost, and asked how they became arbitrators. Inamur Rahim, the counsel for one of the petitioners, also pointed out that Pakistan Army Act (PAA) did not allow militarymen to become arbitrators.

The hearing was adjourned until Nov 30, but the judge gave IB and the district administration until Dec 4 to submit their reports.

Published in Dawn, November 28th, 2017