HAVING failed to oust the government through the parliamentary procedure, the disgruntled parties ‘pray’ courts or stage sit-ins to achieve their objective. In my opinion the Supreme Court should take suo motu notice on the following grounds:

(a) whether the parliamentarians who participated in the 126-day sit-in are sadiq and amin? They publicly resigned from their seats but continued to receive parliamentary allowance. They promised to donate the emoluments received to a relief fund. Did they?

(b) Can and should parliamentarians curse parliament on The Mall while continuing to avail themselves of their hefty remuneration?

(c) Payment of compensation (Law of Tort) to those affected (wage earners, shopkeepers and others) during sit-ins at D-Chowk, Faizabad and The Mall in Lahore.

(d) How can Canadian national Tahirul Qadri participate or lead protests in Pakistan?

(e) What was the basis of Qadri’s asylum application? He sought Canadian asylum under the name of Abdul Shakoor Qadri in 2008, ‘fearing’ threats to his life from Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-i-Jhangvi and Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan. He said in his application that the threats were a sequel to his meeting with the Danish cartoonist who caricatured the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him).

Canada should also explain what was the outcome of violation of the oath Qadri took while seeking asylum? The Royal Canadian Mounted Police questioned Qadri (Feb 5, 2013) about his oath that he feared persecution in Pakistan.

Deeba M. Ali
Rawalpindi

Published in Dawn, January 21st, 2018