PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday quashed separate FIRs registered here against opposition Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader retired Captain Mohammad Safdar and several leaders of Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) on the charges of multiple offences, including sedition.

A bench consisting of Justice Lal Jan Khattak and Justice Mussarat Hilali pronounced order after the completion of arguments by lawyers for different sides, including the provincial government, Mr Safdar, who is also the son-in-law of former prime minister and PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif, and PTM leaders, including former woman MNA Jamila Gilani, Dr Said Alam Mehsud, Sana Ijaz, Abdul Hameed Khanand lawyers Shahab Khattak, Fazal Khan, Rahim Shah and Farhad Afridi.

The high court had granted interim pre-arrest bail to Mr Safdar in the case early this year, while the PTM leaders got the same in their case in July last year. The court clubbed the cases last month.

The FIR against PTM leaders was registered at the East Cantonment police station on Jan 29, 2020, after a protest demonstration was staged against the arrest of PTM central leader Manzoor Pashteen.

The FIR was registered under Pakistan Penal Code’s sections 123-A (condemnation of creation of Pakistan), 124-A (sedition), 120-A (criminal conspiracy) and 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups) and 16Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance.

Read more: PTM's Manzoor Pashteen arrested in Peshawar, sent on 14-day judicial remand

Advocates Abdul Lateef Afridi, Tariq Afghan, Shahab Khattak, Mumtaz Khan and Shah Mohammad appeared for the PTM leaders and sought the quashing of the FIR against their clients insisting its registration was based on mala fide intent and false charges.

They argued that the police in an arbitrary manner had registered the said case and levelled baseless allegations against the petitioners. They stated that the police claimed that objectionable slogans were raised against state institutions by the said activists, whereas in fact nothing of that sort had happened in the said protest demonstration.

They added that the speeches and slogans were meant to demand the supremacy of Parliament and Constitution and the release of PTM leader Manzoor Pashteen.

Similarly, the FIR against Mr Safdar was registered by SHO of East Cant police station Imran Nawaz Alam on Feb 9, 2021, after he attended a court proceeding and talked to media persons on the premises of the high court.

The SHO in the FIR claimed that he had registered the case after receiving written permission of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government.

The FIR was registered under different sections of Pakistan Penal Code including section 121 (waging war against Pakistan), 121-A (conspiracy to wage war against Pakistan), 124-A (sedition), 131 (Mutiny or seducing soldier for mutiny), 153 (provocation to cause riot) and 505 (statement to cause public mischief).

The SHO had claimed that Mr Safdar through his press conference (press talk) had not only tried to defame Pakistan and its institutions rather also tried to create anarchy in the institutions. He alleged that through his inappropriate statement Safdar had tried to instigate general public against the government and institutions and also to create rifts among the armed forces and their leadership.

He said during the media talk, the PML-N leader had used harsh language against military rulers Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf.

Advocates Lateef Afridi, Manzoor Khalil and Tariq Afghan appeared for the petitioner and contended that their client was implicated in a fabricated case.

They said their client’s media statement didn’t amount to sedition or any other offence mentioned in the FIR and that he had pointed out some historical facts to the media persons and nothing was objectionable in it.

They contended that the cases against Mr Safdar were politically motivated.

In both cases, the counsel for petitioners contended that despite the court’s repeated orders, the local police had neither produced transcripts of the video clips containing speeches of the petitioners nor had they got the clips examined forensically.

Published in Dawn, December 23rd, 2021