LAHORE, Jan 29: The Lahore High Court on Wednesday adjourned hearing of the petition, challenging the detention of Dr Ahmad Javed Khwaja and his four family members.
Petitioners’ counsel Hamid Khan was on his legs when Justice M. Javed Buttar adjourned the case till Feb 3.
The counsel submitted that the state had not complied with the court’s order regarding the production of incriminating evidence against Dr Ahmad Javed Khwaja, Ahmad Nadeem Khwaja, Dr Umar Karar, Dr Khizar Ali and Muhammad Usman who have been detained under the Security of Pakistan Act 1952.
The state had also not complied with court’s order regarding filing reply to their representation, visit of Jail Reforms Committee to Chuhng sub-jail, and allowing exclusive meetings of the family members with the detained men in jail.
The conduct of state did not make it entitled to further detain the petitioners since the confidential files allegedly containing evidence against the detained men were not produced despite the court orders, the counsel argued.
He submitted that both Dr Ahmad Javed Khwaja and Ahmad Naveed Khwaja had not been produced before an anti-terrorism court despite being ordered to do so repeatedly which had exposed the mala fide of the state.
The grant of bail to both by an ATC in the case accusing them of opening fire on police party and having links with Al Qaeda activists, had further weakened the case of state, the counsel claimed.
The counsel said on a court query that the state had not challenged the grant of bail as yet.
He termed the allegations that the detained men had links with Al Qaeda activists as unfounded and baseless. According to the counsel, Naveed Ahmad Khwaja had never been to Afghanistan. The Punjab government had said in its report submitted to the court that Naveed Khwaja visited Afghanistan in 1998 for Jihad.
Dr Ahmad Javed Khwaja had gone to Afghanistan along with a team of doctors and had never been involved in any anti-state activity, the counsel claimed.
He argued that Dr Umar Karar, Dr Khizar Ali and Muhammad Usman had neither been arraigned in the case being heard by an ATC nor had their names been mentioned specifically in the reports filed on their detention.
He contended that the LHC had ordered the production of the detained men before it on Dec 27, but the federal government issued their detention orders under Section 3 of the SPA three days later. How would the state justify the 11-day detention of the detained men prior to the issuance of detention orders and the legality of these orders when the production of detained men had already been ordered?
The counsel was on his legs when Justice Buttar adjourned the hearing till Friday. The Punjab Advocate-General showed his inability to turn up on Friday owing to his professional engagement after which the petition was fixed for Jan 3.