PTI moves SHC against alleged detention of workers in Sindh under MPO, seeks immediate release – Pakistan
KARACHI: PTI on Monday challenged in the Sindh High Court (SHC) the alleged detention of over 180 party workers during raids in Karachi and other parts of Sindh under the controversial Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Ordinance.
On Sunday, the PTI alleged that the Sindh police carried out pre-dawn raids on the houses of its workers and leaders and picked up around 180 of them. The provincial government has denied the allegations of detention.
The petitioners — General Secretary of PTI Sindh, Mansoor Ali, and President of the Insaf Lawyers Forum, Faisal Mughal — contended that the order issued under the MPO, dated February 1, be declared impugned and sought the immediate release of the party workers.
The petition — a copy of which is available with Dawn — named 14 respondents, including the provincial chief secretary, the additional chief secretary, the inspector general of Police, Sindh, the Central police office, additional IGP Karachi police, the deputy IGs east, west, south zone, the SSPs Karachi east, west, south, central, Malir district, Korangi district, Keamari district.
The petitioners requested the court to declare the MPO orders “unconstitutional, illegal, without lawful authority, void ab initio, coram non judice, and of no legal effect”.
The petition stated that the orders were given without “any disclosed or lawful decision, approval, or satisfaction of the Provincial Cabinet,” which it said stood in direct violation of Articles 4, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”
The petitioners sought that the court declare the “impugned orders constitute a mala fide, colourable, arbitrary and politically motivated exercise of power, issued for an extraneous and collateral purpose, namely the suppression of political opposition and peaceful democratic activity, and not for the genuine maintenance of public order as contemplated by law”.
The petitioners further said that the PTI, as a registered and recognised political party, “is constitutionally entitled ot organise, participate in, and carry out peaceful political activity, including meetings, protests, strikes, and political expression”.
They demanded that the court “set aside the impugned orders in their entirety and suspend their operation forthwith”.
It added that the respondents should be restrained from taking “any action whatsoever pursuant to, in reliance upon, or in furtherance of the said impugned orders”.
The petitioners also requested the court to direct the immediate release of “all persons who have been arrested, detained, restrained, or otherwise deprived of liberty pursuant to the impugned orders, if not required in any other case”.
It further asked that “no fresh detention, arrest, or coercive action be taken against them on the basis of the same allegations, intelligence, or grounds”.
The petition added that the respondents should be restrained from taking “any action whatsoever pursuant to, in reliance upon, or in furtherance of the said impugned orders”.
It further asked the court to declare the actions taken in relation to the orders “illegal, unconstitutional, without lawful authority, and violative of fundamental rights.”
The petitioners alleged that actions taken against the workers included “warrantless raids, home invasions, arrests, detentions, harassment, intimidation, and the detention of minors, women, and elderly citizens”.
The petitioners requested the court to “cease and desist” the respondents from taking further action against the political workers, supporters, and affiliates of PTI “on the basis of the impugned orders or similar blanket directives”.
It also sought that the respondents should present before the court the “complete original record, including all summaries, intelligence reports, recommendations, approvals, notes, and decision-making documents allegedly relied upon for issuance of the impugned orders, including any purported approval or consideration by the provincial Cabinet.”
The petitioners requested the court to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the additional chief secretary (home) and declare that he “has acted in wilful disobedience and defiance of binding judgments of this honourable court passed in earlier MPO matters, and that the repeated issuance of identical unlawful orders amounts to disregard of judicial authority and prima facie contempt of court”.
They requested the court to ensure that no preventive detention order under the MPO Ordinance should be issued in Sindh without “strict compliance with constitutional requirements, individualised satisfaction, and demonstrable approval of the provincial Cabinet”.
The petitioners asked the court to issue orders “restraining respondents from misusing” provisions under the MPO, particularly, as a “substitute for ordinary criminal law or as a tool for political suppression”.
“Declare that the existence of any alleged alternate remedy under the MPO Ordinance does not bar the constitutional jurisdiction of this honourable court in matters involving deprivation of liberty and mass unlawful detention,” the petition read.
It further said that the court should “grant any consequential, incidental, or ancillary relief necessary to fully restore and protect the fundamental rights of the affected citizens, including protection against re-arrest on the same or similar grounds”.
More to follow.
