KARACHI: A sessions court on Wednesday dismissed an application seeking the registration of an FIR against US President Donald Trump for ordering the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, which the applicant claimed caused widespread fear and terror across Pakistan.

Applicant Jamshaid Ali Khowaja — claiming to represent 100 members of the International Lawyers Forum (ILF) — had moved the court under Section 22-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) through his counsel, Syed Jaffar Abbas.

He sought directions for the Docks SHO to record his statement and register an FIR against President Trump over the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites on the night of June 21 and 22.

In his application, the petitioner’s counsel argued that on the night of June 21 and 22, the US president launched an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities using advanced B-2 bomber aircraft, which not only triggered global panic but allegedly caused psychological harm to millions of Muslims — including 100 ILF members — over a 48-hour period.

Citing lack of jurisdiction, judge dismisses application for being devoid of merit

He also claimed that fear had spread across Pakistan, particularly in areas falling within the jurisdiction of the Docks police station, due to the reported presence of US naval fleets and alleged suspicious activity near the Sindh coastal belt.

After hearing arguments from the applicant’s counsel and court-appointed amicus curiae Muhammad Tahir Khan, Additional District and Sessions Judge (West) Ameeruddin dismissed the application in limine, terming it devoid of merit.

In its detailed order, the court noted that the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites was reportedly ordered by the US president in his official capacity as Commander-in-Chief under Article 2 of the US Constitution.

Citing precedents from the US Supreme Court and provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), the court observed that the US president is protected under the doctrine of head-of-state immunity.

With reference to Pakistani criminal law, the judge noted that offences committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of Pakistan cannot be registered under the country’s laws.

“The Ex-Officio Justice of Peace lacks lawful authority over a sitting US president, who enjoys immunity under both customary international law and treaty obligations,” the judge wrote. “As a result, even initiating such proceedings would not only be legally unsustainable, but would also require the physical presence or extradition of the accused — neither of which is feasible. Functional immunity shields heads of state from legal proceedings in foreign jurisdictions for actions carried out in their official capacity.”

The court also observed that lodging a criminal case against a sitting US president in Pakistan would constitute a “grave diplomatic affront, potentially provoking significant retaliatory measures by the United States.”

Referring to a 2013 ruling by the Peshawar High Court on US drone strikes, the judge remarked that superior courts in Pakistan have consistently shown judicial restraint in politically sensitive cases involving foreign officials, especially when questions of jurisdiction remain unsettled.

It added that while drone attacks were declared violations of international law, no criminal proceedings were ever initiated against any US official.

Published in Dawn, July 3rd, 2025