‘Resettlement’ of terrorists: PHC dismisses Aimal’s plea for formation of inquiry commission

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Tuesday dismissed a writ petition seeking the formation of an inquiry commission to identify the facilitators involved in the resettlement of terrorists.

During the hearing, Justice S M Attique Shah remarked that the court will not interfere in policy matters.

“Being a senator, why the petitioner does not raise these issues in the Senate,” the judge observed and suggested that a jirga of all political parties should be formed to resolve the issue.

He criticised parliamentarians for not fulfilling their responsibilities, saying that the parliament was supreme and such matters should be addressed there.

A two-member bench of the PHC comprising Justice S M Attique Shah and Justice Sahibzada Asadullah heard the petition. Babar Khan Yousafzai and Sultan Muhammad Khan appeared for the petitioner Aimal Wali Khan, senator and Awami National Party (ANP) central president, while the provincial government was represented by Additional Advocate General Asad Jan Durrani, and the federal government by Assistant Attorney General Daulat Khan.

The petitioners’ lawyers argued that the resettlement of terrorists had started under the previous government, and a writ was filed in the Peshawar High Court in 2023, requesting the formation of an inquiry commission to investigate those responsible for the resettlement, as the federal government had refrained from taking any action in this regard.

The lawyers pleaded that both the federal and provincial governments had the authority to form tribunals and inquiry commissions, and that citizens, when seeking such commissions, had no option but to approach the high court. They also pointed out that international tribunals and inquiry commissions had been formed under extraordinary circumstances on numerous occasions.

Upon this, Justice S M Attique Shah asked the petitioners what they wanted, to which Babar Yousafzai responded that they sought the formation of a fact-finding committee to identify those responsible for the resettlement of terrorists.

Justice S M Attique Shah reiterated that the petitioner was a member of the Senate and should raise these issues there, where his presence was needed. He remarked that parliamentarians were not fulfilling their duties in parliament.

Justice S M Attique Shah added that unfortunately, parliament had ceded too much authority to others.

At this point, Justice Sahibzada Asadullah asked if discussions with these groups were still going on.

The petitioners’ lawyer informed the court that they had raised this issue in both the Senate and the National Assembly, and that just last night, there had been an attack on police in Swat.

Justice S M Attique Shah then advised them to form a national jirga, bring all political parties together, and try to resolve the issue. He said that the court would not interfere in policy matters.

Aimal Wali Khan’s lawyer argued that the effects of the resettlement of terrorists were still visible, and incidents of terrorism continued unabated. He pleaded that, in the past, the court had formed commissions in matters of public interest, and many decisions had been made in this regard.

Upon this, Justice S M Attique Shah responded that forming a commission was the parliament’s job, and such a commission can only be formed if parliament decides so.

The lawyer informed the court that they had submitted a request to the prime minister and had raised the issue in parliament, but no action was taken. However, Justice S M Attique Shah again made it clear to the petitioners’ lawyers that parliament was supreme, and these issues should be raised there.

The lawyer argued that, when the resettlement discussions were ongoing, the matter was not brought before parliament, and decisions were made behind closed doors.

He pleaded that people rights were being usurped, and in such cases, the court had the authority to intervene, citing previous precedents where the court formed commissions on environmental pollution.

“Since this is a matter of terrorism and the people of this province are being affected, the court should order the formation of a commission to determine responsibility,” he prayed to the bench.

After the arguments, the bench dismissed the petition and advised the petitioner to raise the issue in parliament.