ISLAMABAD: The federal government apprised the Islamabad High Court (IHC) that the proposal to exchange Dr Aafia Siddiqui for Shakeel Afridi is not workable
A single bench of Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, on Friday, heard a constitutional petition of Dr Fowzia Siddiqui who moved the court through advocate Imran Shafiq and sought release of Dr Aafia Siddiqui currently confined in an American prison.
Additional Attorney General (AAG) Munawar Iqbal Duggal, lawyer Imran Shafiq and amicus curiae Zainab Janjua appeared before the court.
During the hearing, the AAG told that the proposal to hand over Afridi in exchange for Siddiqui’s release was not feasible. The proposal was originally suggested by Dr Siddiqui’s counsel, Clive Smith, as part of efforts to secure her release.
Duggal also expressed concerns about certain points in the petition filed in the US regarding Dr Aafia’s case.
Justice Ijaz expressed his surprise by the government’s shift in stance regarding the petition which appeared to retract support for Siddiqui’s petition for release in the US court. He also directed the government to respond to objections related to Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s release next week.
The bench directed the law officer to consult with the government and provide a response to any objections raised by the next Friday’s hearing.
The AAG further told that both Shakeel Afridi and Aafia Siddiqui are Pakistani nationals, and emphasised that Pakistan has no agreement with the US on prisoner exchanges.
At that, Justice Sardar Ijaz Ishaq inquired about the importance of Afridi to the US and asked for an update on his case.
Zainab Janjua informed that Shakeel Afridi is convicted, with his appeal still pending in the Peshawar High Court (PHC).
Fowzia Siddiqui’s lawyer Imran Shafiq mentioned that Afridi faces charges of espionage. Duggal also informed the court that a letter on the matter was submitted on February 19, but former US President Joe Biden had rejected the request without acknowledging it.
To this, Justice Ishaq raised concerns about the lack of a response from the White House and questioned the diplomatic propriety of sending a letter without a reply. He remarked that the White House did not even acknowledge the letter, questioning what diplomatic norms are followed when one country writes to another. Later, the bench deferred hearing until next Friday.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.