LAHORE, Jan 28: The federal government on Tuesday expressed its inability to submit a file containing evidence against Dr Ahmad Javed Khwaja and others to the Lahore High Court, declaring that the information was “highly sensitive”.

The state also acknowledged that it had not yet reached a decision with regard to the presentation filed by the detainees.

The court had directed the interior ministry to submit the file to it on the last hearing for its satisfaction regarding the detention of Dr Umar Karar, Dr Khizar Ali and Mohammad Usman along with that of Dr Ahmad Javed Khwaja and Ahmad Naveed Khwaja under the Security of Pakistan Act 1952.

Earlier, the deputy attorney general had informed the court that the file could be not produced in the court for the time being, since it contained evidence that was too sensitive to be disclosed.

The court inquired as to how would it be able to satisfy itself regarding the grounds for the detention of the accused without going through that file.

In a joint reply, both the Punjab advocate general (AG) and the DAG submitted that the reports of federal and provincial governments regarding detention of the five accused should be considered as sufficient and concrete evidence against them. They argued that the matter already placed before the court was “incriminating” enough.

It was argued by the state counsels that names of those whose detention had been questioned by the court on the last hearing, were mentioned in the reports along with the other two. They could not claim relief on grounds that their names had not been mentioned in the reports, argued the counsels.

When asked about the progress on the presentation filed by the detainees, the DAG disclosed that reply to the presentation had not been filed, as the matter was pending before the court.

The interior ministry had been directed on the last hearing to decide the presentation within one week. Following these submissions, Justice Javed Buttar observed that he would like to hear arguments on the main petition of detainees.

The counsel for detainees, Hamid Khan, read out the contents of an FIR lodged against the detainees under Section 11(V) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and Section 324 of the PPC.

He then referred to the reports of both the federal and provincial governments on the detention of the five accused. He pointed to an apparent contradiction in the two reports as the federal government had claimed that the detainees were arrested outside their residence while the provincial government’s report conveyed the impression that they were arrested inside the residence.

The counsel was on his legs when the court adjourned the proceedings for the day.