LAHORE, Jan 22: The Lahore High Court on Wednesday directed the federal government to produce a confidential file containing incriminating evidence against Dr Ahmad Javed Khwaja and other detainees for their alleged links to Al-Qaeda activists.

Justice M Javed Buttar directed the interior ministry to submit the file to him by Jan 28 and also decide the fate of a representation, made before it by the five detainees, within a week.

The court expressed its displeasure over the Punjab advocate-general’s visit to the Chuhng sub-jail last week without taking the petitioners’ counsel and Jail Reforms Committee members along with him as per its directions.

He had been directed to visit the sub-jail in the company of Advocate Pervez Inayat Malik and Jail Reforms Committee members to learn about the difficulties faced by the five detainees. The court observed that it was unable to understand as to why the AG had gone there all alone. It again ordered the AG to visit the sub-jail in the company of the counsel and others before the next hearing.

The confidential file was called by the court to particularly examine evidence available to the interior ministry against Dr Umar Karar Khwaja, Dr Khizar Ali, Muhammad Usman.

It was observed by the court that it could not proceed further without examining that file which should be placed before it by the next hearing.

These instructions were issued following a contention made by detainees’ counsel Hamid Khan that the former three detainees should be released forthwith since they had not been nominated in the reports submitted earlier by both federal and provincial governments on their detention under the Security of Pakistan Act 1952.

He argued that the three detainees had not even been nominated in the FIR nor were their alleged connections with Al-Qaeda stood substantiated through any evidence.

Deputy Attorney-General Sher Zaman Khan submitted that the detention order had been passed by the interior ministry against all the five detainees and they had been held accused jointly of supporting Al Qaeda’s activists. He also read out the detentions order to the court to support his argument. The court, however, observed that the DAG was merely re-producing the detention order and the court was not satisfied with the state version on the involvement of three detainees in the allegations levelled against them. It further disagreed with the DAG’s argument that the burden of proof was on the detainees.

“The order has to be adjudged objectively and the onus of proof is on the state to prove detainees’ alleged indulgence in anti-state activities,” observed the court.

On this observation of the court, the DAG submitted that there was sufficient material against the three detainees available in a confidential file which was currently lying with the interior ministry. The court observed that the examination of that file was a must to meet the needs of justice.

The DAG also filed the reply of the federal government to the application of Dr Umar Karar, seeking permission to leave for Haj on Jan 24. He informed that the application had been declined for being non-maintainable and without substance.

As argued by the DAG, neither the initial detention period of 90 days had lapsed nor were the detention orders set aside as yet by the court, therefore, the applicant could not be allowed to leave for Haj.

Earlier, Hamid Khan informed the court that he had filed a rejoinder to both the reports of federal and provincial governments in which the allegations of links to Al-Qaeda had been denied vehemently.

The five detainees had been accused of harbouring five most wanted activists of Al-Qaeda at their residence in Manawan. The counsel submitted in the rejoinder that there was a visible contradiction in the two reports. According to the counsel, the federal government had claimed that the arrest of five detainees from outside their house while the provincial government’s report had conveyed the impression that they were arrested from inside the house following a raid.

This contradiction had exposed the fake and unfounded case of the state, alleged the counsel. He further argued that the alleged recovery of Sudanese and Saudi nationals’ passports along with Afghani and other foreign currency from the house of detainees was mere fabrication to support the case.