PESHAWAR, Nov 27: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Tuesday directed the advocate-general of NWFP to consult the provincial governor as to whether the government intends to extend the detention period of Jamaat-i-Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmad beyond one month or not.

The bench, comprising Justice Khalida Rashied and Justice Qaim Jan Khan, observed that if the provincial government intended to further extend the detention period, expiring on Dec 6, then the PHC would decide the matter itself.

Advocate-General Qazi Rasheedul Haq expressed ignorance about the plans of the government. He said as Qazi Hussain was arrested on the orders of the NWFP Governor, therefore he would consult him and let the court know about the government intentions.

The bench fixed the petition of the JI chief for Nov 28 (Wednesday).

In case the government does not intend to extend the detention period then it is not clear whether the court would decide the question of legality of the provincial government’s order issued under section 3, of the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Ordinance on Nov 6. If the government does not extend the detention period then the petition will be disposed of accordingly.

After arguments by Advocate Arif Khan, representing the petitioner, and NWFP Advocate-General, the bench observed that the order was issued by the government for one month and 21 days had already passed. It also observed that at present the petitioner was admitted in a hospital and it appeared that for the remaining days he would remain there.

Earlier, when the bench took up the petition for hearing, challenging the detention of the petitioner in Tanda Dam rest house, Kohat, advocate Arif Khan had submitted that his detention was illegal and against the law. He raised two major grounds in support of his contentions, stating that an FIR was already registered against the petitioner in Mardan on Nov 2, but he had not been arrested in that case instead he was arrested under the law dealing with preventive detention.

Mr Khan argued that the impugned order was based on mala fide intentions. He referred to various judgments of the superior courts arguing that when a law was available for a specific offence then the MPO could not be applied to that case. The court asked him why he did not file a representation to the government under the law.

He replied that as he had alleged mala fide on part of the government , therefore the petitioner was not expecting anything positive from the government.

Mr Haq stated that the petitioner was delivering provocative speeches against the government. If the petitioner was allowed to act in such a manner then it would have proved disastrous for the nation, he added.

He contended that the government had a lot of responsibilities and most important of all was to safeguard the nuclear arsenal.

He asked: “Can Pakistan fight against the might of the Americans as was suggested by the petitioner?”

Mr Haq said that the petitioner always remained in one place or another due to which his arrest in that case was difficult. Justice Khalida asked whether the petitioner was a ghost that he could not be arrested.

The advocate-general faced hard time in convincing the court as to why the petitioner was not arrested when he was charged in a sedition case.