Constitutional bench seeks reports on missing persons

ISLAMABAD: The constitutional bench on Tuesday sought reports from all institutions concerned in the case of missing persons.

A six-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, heard multiple cases. Other members included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Musarat Hilali.

The bench issued notices to the attorney general, Ministry of Interior and other parties, adjourning the matter for a week.

During the hearing, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail emphasised the importance of the issue, saying that cases of missing persons were ongoing in both the high courts and the Supreme Court. “Thousands of people are missing,” remarked Justice Mandokhail, adding that senior politicians like Aitzaz Ahsan and Latif Khosa were present in court. Justice Mandokhail said that this issue must be resolved by parliament.

Deputy Attorney General Javed Iqbal informed the bench that the issue of missing persons had been discussed in the cabinet, which had subsequently formed a subcommittee to submit recommendations. He said the government was committed to resolving the matter. However, Justice Mandokhail remarked that the issue would not be resolved through rhetoric.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar inquired about the number of recoveries made so far by the Missing Persons Commission, while Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi asked whether the commission had any data and if the recovered persons had disclosed who abducted them.

Justice Mandokhail observed that those who returned often claimed they had gone to the northern areas to rest, avoiding any details. Advocate Latif Khosa remarked that the country had become a “deep state.” At this point, Justice Mandokhail cautioned him against making political statements. “Solve the problem by calling a general or joint session of parliament,” Justice Mandokhail suggested.

In response, Khosa questioned whether the issue should be resolved in the same manner as the 26th Amendment. Justice Mandokhail replied that the 26th Constitutional Amendment would be addressed in due course, adding that the nation and the court were looking to parliament.

Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, the petitioner, argued that parliament did not have judicial powers.

Justice Musarat Hilali asked Latif Khosa if members of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf were also among those picked up. Khosa affirmed this and said that even the children of those detained might face similar fates.

Advocate Faisal Siddiqui informed the bench that families of missing persons had been seeking justice for a decade. He said that during the last hearing, the court had issued orders on the missing persons case, but the bench could not locate the order during the current session.

Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan highlighted a case from Balochistan where 25 lawyers represented missing persons, and some were recovered on the orders of the Balochistan High Court. However, he observed that these individuals failed to appear before any judicial forum to provide statements. “There is a purpose to record the statements of recovered individuals,” Justice Afghan said, adding that such statements could lead to appropriate actions, including recommendations for court martial if military personnel were involved.

Justice Afghan expressed concern that some missing persons cases were used to defame the state, saying that the system lacked accountability. Advocate Faisal Siddiqui further contended that despite assurances by the attorney general, 350 people had gone missing, and state officials were disregarding the previous court orders.

Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan remarked that the court aimed to move toward a resolution in the missing persons case. Justice Mandokhail stressed that the only way forward was for stakeholders to collaborate and investigate the root causes of these disappearances.

Separately, the constitutional bench disposed of a suo moto case related to the foreign accounts of Pakistanis. Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) counsel Hafiz Ehsan Khokar said that Rs880 million had been recovered, with ongoing efforts for further recoveries. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail suggested that if the FBR faced difficulties, it should propose amendments to parliament. The bench also dismissed a suo moto case regarding a grid station built on Karachi’s green belt, ruling that the plot had been allocated for public convenience and not designated as a green belt.

Furthermore, the hearing on the legal status of Gilgit-Baltistan was adjourned after Advocate Hamid Khan sought time to submit a reply. The bench also dismissed a petition filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution by Asghar Ali Mubarik against the rejection of his presidential nomination papers. The court fined him Rs20,000, directing the amount to be deposited with the national treasury. The hearing was adjourned until next week.