KARACHI, Feb 8: Afaq Ahmed, chief of the Mohajir Qaumi Movement (MQM), on Wednesday moved the Sindh High Court against the federal authorities for not allowing him to travel abroad.
He filed a constitutional petition through his legal representative, Syed Muhammed Iqbal Kazmi, against the interior secretary and the director-general of the passport and immigration department for placing his name on the Exit Control List (ECL) and not issuing him a passport.
According to the petition, Mr Ahmed had applied for the passport but the passport issuing authority refused to issue itbecause his name was placed on the ECL.
It said that the ban on his traveling abroad was illegal and unconstitutional as he was neither involved in any anti-stateactivities, nor did he cause any loss to the national exchequer.
The petitioner prayed to the court to direct the respondents to remove his name from the ECL and issue him a passport so that he could travel abroad.
The petition is expected to come up for preliminary hearing during this week.
ATC issues noticesAn anti-terrorism court on Wednesday issued notices on an application moved by Mohajir Qaumi Movement-Haqiqi chairman Afaq Ahmed seeking adoption of previous evidence in a kidnapping for ransom case.
Mr Ahmed along with his co-accused has been charged with abducting Karachi Development Authority (KDA) sub-divisional officer Jameel Ahmed Baloch in May 2001 in Korangi and demanding a ransom for his safe release.
The MQM-H chief through his lawyer moved an application in the court stating that in order to save court’s time he would request that the previous evidence already recorded during a trial of the co-accused be adopted in the present case.
ATC-II judge Khalida Yasin issued notices to the prosecutor and counsel for the complainant party to argue the plea on Feb 23.
A case (FIR No 201/2001) was registered under sections 365-A (kidnapping to extort money) and 34 (common intention) of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at the Korangi police station.
It is worth mentioning that in the first trial, the court had acquitted three accused on the ground that Section 365-A of the PPC did not apply on the offence.
It convicted three accused under Section 348 (wrongful confinement to extort, confess, or compel restoration of property) ofthe PPC.