ISLAMABAD: The federal government emphasised before the Supreme Court on Thursday to give primacy to the Action in Aid of Civil Power Regulations (AACPR), 2011, promulgated by President Asif Ali Zardari in exercise of his powers under article 247 of the constitution.

“The AACPR cannot be struck down by the apex court on the pretext that it violates the fundamental rights of citizens,” argued Attorney General Irfan Qadir, adding that primacy had to be given to the regulations.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was hearing a challenge against the AACPR under which an internment centre had been set up near the Pak-Afghan border in Orakzai Agency — a tribal area of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The AACPR allows the civil government to detain people accused of terrorism.

The same bench is seized with petitions highlighting health conditions of seven surviving Adiyala prisoners who are accused of terrorism and earlier they were under detention in internment centres. They were handed over to political authorities for their trial under the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR), 1901.

These prisoners went missing mysteriously from the door of Rawalpindi’s Adiyala Jail the day they were acquitted of terrorism charges on May 29, 2010, for their alleged involvement in the October 2009 attacks on the army’s GHQ and the ISI’s Hamza Camp, Rawalpindi.

Of them, four died in unexplained circumstances while the remaining seven were produced before the apex court for the first time on Feb 13, 2012, in bad shape. They were first sent to the Lady Reading Hospital (LRH) in Peshawar for medical treatment on court orders and when five of them recovered they were shifted to the internment centre.

Meanwhile, the attorney general argued before the Supreme Court that under article 247 of the constitution the president was vested with authority to make any regulation — a power that could be equated with the legislative competence of the parliament.

The president’s competency of making legislation or regulation was not limited to making any statute only, the AG said, adding that the real purpose was to restore normalcy in restive areas where terrorists were active. Therefore, the courts must respect and honour the mandate the president was vested with, he said, adding that the regulation was promulgated against those people who had abandoned their loyalty to the state.

Once somebody gave up allegiance to the state, the AG explained, he lost all legal protection, safeguards and fundamental rights available to him under the law and the constitution.

The AG cited the examples of many countries like the United States, India and Israel where the state might detain any suspect in terrorism cases for 72 hours. “When the entire jungle was on fire we will not count trees but try to extinguish the fire,” he said.

Similarly, Advocate Raja Mohammad Irshad, representing the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Military Intelligence (MI) argued that they were premier intelligence agencies and not prosecuting agencies and that they would never lay their hands on innocent people.

Referring to the seven surviving prisoners, Raja Irshad assured the court that the trial against these prisoners would likely be completed in a week. He lamented that it was very difficult to obtain convictions from anti-terrorists courts (ATC) because such courts had been terrorised by militants and witnesses could not dare come forward to record their evidence.

Despite court’s summons, Judge Adjutant General (JAG) Brig Naubahar could not turn up before the bench to explain about the status of the trial of these prisoners.

Raja Irshad, however, explained that it was not possible for the JAG to appear before the court because he was busy with a national security conference being presided over by Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.

The court asked Raja Irshad to deny or own the statement earlier given by the JAG that these prisoners would be freed if no incriminating evidence was collected against them.

The court also asked Raja Irshad to submit a report about the status of the evidence against these prisoners. The court decided to hear arguments on the subject on April 15.

Raja Irshad explained that these people were high-profile terrorists and after their acquittal by the ATC they were whisked away from the Adiyala jail by terrorists to utilise their expertise in operational areas. Law-enforcement agencies arrested them from sensitive areas after they attacked a convoy of army and paramilitary forces.

The JAG had decided to try them under the Army Act, 1956, but thereafter rendered an opinion that being civilians they could not be tried under the army act.