PESHAWAR, Jan 9: The Peshawar High Court Bar Association on Tuesday condemned the mining of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, terming it unconstitutional, inhuman and against international treaties.

Through a resolution a meeting of the association requested the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to take suo motu notice of the issue, stating the border mining would result in maiming and killing of innocent people, especially women and children.

Barrister Zahoorul Haq presided over the meeting which was convened on the requisition filed by the FATA Lawyers’ Forum.

The meeting decided that in case the chief justice did not take notice of the matter, members of the Supreme Court Bar Association from Peshawar would challenge it in the apex court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

The meeting said that the decision taken by the Pakistani government was in violation of The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, commonly known as the Ottawa Convention.

Barrister Zahoorul Haq, Kareem Mehsud, Barrister Bachhaa, Shahabuddin Burq, Taj Mahal Afridi, Ghulam Nabi and Moazam Butt spoke on the occasion.

Majority of the speakers said the decision of the Pakistani government was impracticable and unrealistic as people with the same ethnic background lived on both sides of the Durand Line.

They said that from North and South Waziristan upto Bajaur agencies, the people used to frequently cross the Durand Line as in most of the cases family members had been residing on both sides of the border.

They said that in Waziristan agencies there were people who had been residing on the Afghan side of the border, but they have cultivable land and shops on the Pakistani side.

They said that women and children frequently used to cross the border for collecting fire-wood and they would become victims of landmines known as indiscriminate killers.

They said that the anti-personnel mines did not discriminate between a combatant and non-combatant, between a militant and innocent woman and children.

Criticising General Pervez Musharraf, the meeting said that a single individual had no right to play with the life of thousands of people.

They said that it was unconstitutional to make such vital decisions without the consent of parliament and the people.

Moazam Butt opposed the resolution and walked out of the meeting.

Opinion

Merging for what?

Merging for what?

The concern is that if the government is thinking of cutting costs through the merger, we might even lose the functionality levels we currently have.

Editorial

Dubai properties
Updated 16 May, 2024

Dubai properties

It is hoped that any investigation that is conducted will be fair and that no wrongdoing will be excused.
In good faith
16 May, 2024

In good faith

THE ‘P’ in PTI might as well stand for perplexing. After a constant yo-yoing around holding talks, the PTI has...
CTDs’ shortcomings
16 May, 2024

CTDs’ shortcomings

WHILE threats from terrorist groups need to be countered on the battlefield through military means, long-term ...
Reserved seats
Updated 15 May, 2024

Reserved seats

The ECP's decisions and actions clearly need to be reviewed in light of the country’s laws.
Secretive state
15 May, 2024

Secretive state

THERE is a fresh push by the state to stamp out all criticism by using the alibi of protecting national interests....
Plague of rape
15 May, 2024

Plague of rape

FLAWED narratives about women — from being weak and vulnerable to provocative and culpable — have led to...