KARACHI: Expressing extreme displeasure over flawed handling of the issue of missing persons by the provincial and federal authorities, the Sindh High Court on Thursday said that the interior ministry did not seem interested in streamlining cooperation between the provincial and federal law-enforcement agencies.

A division bench headed by Chief Justice Mushir Alam, seized with over two dozen petitions against law-enforcers, said the issue of missing persons should be a matter of serious concern for the Sindh home secretary and the authorities concerned, but it appeared that “they are on the back foot”.

The observation came during the hearing of a petition against the disappearance of Mohammed Afzal, a brother of the late Saud Memon, who was allegedly detained by the United States and local agencies for several years for his alleged affiliation with Al-Qaeda and harbouring suspects involved in the killing of American journalist Daniel Pearl.

Ayesha submitted in her petition that her husband, a textile businessman, had gone to offer Maghrib prayers in Jodia Bazaar but never returned. The petitioner submitted that her brother-in-law, Saud Memon, was also detained by intelligence agencies in 2003 and later was handed over to the US authorities without any due process of law.

Mr Memon owned the piece of land where Mr Pearl`s body was found buried after his execution in January 2002. After more than four years of detention, Mr Memon was released by his captors in a precarious condition and he died soon after his admission to hospital.

The petitioner apprehended that her husband might also be killed and prayed to the court to direct the law-enforcement agencies to produce him.

The bench took serious notice of the lack of coordination between provincial and federal law-enforcement agencies, saying: “It seems that the interior ministry is not concerned to work out and streamline cooperation between the provincial and federal government law-enforcement agencies”.The court said there seemed to be a tug-of-war among law-enforcement agencies whereby efforts were made to let the other agency down by withholding or non-sharing of information.

The court directed the home secretary to look into the matter and establish contact with the federal law-enforcement agencies such as the Inter-Services Intelligence, Military Intelligence and Intelligence Bureau.

The provincial law-officers present in the court were also directed to convey the directions of the court to the police and other provincial and intelligence agencies.

Hearing other missing persons’ cases, the bench directed the home secretary and the provincial police chief to ensure that a police officer entrusted with investigation by the court was not transferred, posted or removed from the investigation except in case of professional misconduct or negligence.

The court also expressed grave displeasure over the incompetence of the investigation officers assigned to inquire into the cases of the missing persons. The court said only paperwork was done in the cases of the missing persons and no field work was carried out, which reflected the pathetic affairs of investigation and prosecution.

The court directed the provincial police chief to examine the working of officers who attended the court in compliance of its directives as the court faced difficulties because of frequent transfers of officers.

The court said investigation officers appointed by the police were not aware of the progress and development in the case nor did they carry out investigation or supervision of the investigation which showed “how seriously the law and order situation in the city is being attended by the law-enforcement agencies”.

The bench also took exception to the non-appearance of SSP Khurrum Waris of the Special Investigation Unit and warned him over disobedience of court orders.

Hearing the petition of Nazia Begum against illegal detention of her husband, Abdul Rauf Baloch, by the SIU, the court issued a show-cause notice to the SSP, saying why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him and his case be recommended to the inspector general for suspension and dispensation from service for disobedience of the court order.

However, the SSP appeared before the court after its office timing and submitted that he was not informed about the proceedings. The court cautioned the officer to render assistance to the court otherwise disciplinary proceedings would be recommended or initiated against him.

The court recalled the show-cause notice and dropped disciplinary proceedings against the SSP after his belated appearance.