LAHORE, Feb 1: The Central Jail superintendent claimed in an anti-terrorism court on Saturday that he was instructed not to produce Dr Ahmad Javed Khwaja and Ahmad Naveed Khwaja despite court orders.

After his on-oath statement, the court issued showcause notice to the superintendent, asking why should not he be tried under section 37 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) on contempt charges. He was also directed to file a written reply to the contempt application filed against him by the accused.

The court in its last hearing ordered the accused’s production the other day (Saturday). It repeated its orders for the accused’s production on February 8.

The directions for the production were issued after accused’s counsel Advocate Pervez Inayat Malik insisted issuance of these orders.

Earlier, the court had agreed to the prosecutor’s request that the accused should not be ordered to be produced on next hearing, and the contempt application should be decided first.

However, the defence counsel argued that the production orders should be issued and, if the court would not issue such orders, his arguments in this regard should be brought on the judicial record. After these submissions, the court ordered the accused’s production.

Earlier, the superintendent while appearing on the contempt application submitted that he could not produce the accused before court because the higher officials had not permitted him, and the accused had been detained under the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952.

The court expressed displeasure over this submission, asking how could he disobey the court orders for the accused’s production on the pretext of high-ups’ instructions. It warned that he would not be allowed to play “hide and seek” with the court, and would have to face consequences for non-compliance.

The court directed that the copy of a letter addressed to the federal government for permission to produce the accused before court should have been produced in person. However, the superintendent faxed the letter to court, which the judge called an indisciplined interaction.

The accused’s counsel submitted that his clients had been facing a “media trial” following their arrest, as the news of their alleged links with Al Qaeda had made headlines in the national press. The interior ministry had also made the same claim, he added.

He argued that the trial court was only a platform for remedy to the accused against their alleged links with Al Qaeda, but the trial was being intentionally delayed by the prosecution.

The accused would have no objection if the trial was adjourned sine die, only when the prosecution would withdraw the interim challan submitted against them to the extent of section 7 ATA (indulging in terrorist activists) and section 11(v) ATA (supporting terrorist organization), the counsel said.

Prosecutor Rana Bakhtiar, however, refuted these submissions and called these non-maintainable. These two sections had been added to the challan after thorough investigation and could not be deleted merely on grounds that the accused could not be produced for security grounds, he argued.

Refused: An ATC refused to extend the physical custody of the five accused arrested from Mughalpura on charges of contemplating an armed attack on foreigners and places of worship.

Irfan, Waheed, Niaz, Abbas and Zahid were arrested with arms allegedly to be used for killing foreigners.

The court observed that recovery had been made from the accused and there was nothing more to be retrieved from them. Therefore, he said, further physical custody could not be allowed.

The court sent them on a judicial remand with directions to police to file a challan against them by next hearing.