IHC questions army's role

Islamabad High Court on Monday questioned army's role as a mediator in bringing Tehreek Labbaik Ya Rasool Allah (TLYRA) sit-in to an end, observing that if any soldier is interested in politics then he should at first resign from his job. The TLYR reached an agreement with the government through Major General Faiz Hameed to end its sit-in protest after Law Minister Zahid Hamid called it a day.
Announcing its verdict in response to two petitions seeking action against TLYRA protestors on Monday, a single-member bench of Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui said, "besides a number of serious objections on the terms of agreement, most alarming is that Major General Faiz Hameed put signature as one through whom agreement arrived at. It is also very strange that efforts of General Qamar Javed Bajwa, Chief of Army Staff, have been acknowledged."
During the course of proceedings, Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal submitted that an agreement has been reached between the government and the protesters.
Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui asked him to produce a copy of the agreement to which Iqbal sought time to submit the same, however, Chief Commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) had a copy of the same, which he received on his WhatsAPP and on court's direction he read out the agreement.
To which, Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui observed, "Prima facie, the role assumed by the top leadership of army is against the Constitution and law of land. Armed forces being part of executive of the country cannot travel beyond their mandate bestowed upon them by the organic law of the country ie Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is a matter of record that most abusive and filthy language was used against the honourable judges of Supreme Court, but the government and arbitrator did not bother to persuade the leadership of TLYR to even tender an apology in this regard."
During the hearing, Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui observed that the Army Chief instead of following the directives of the Chief Executive became a mediator. "Who is the Army Chief to adopt a mediator's role?" Justice Siddiqui asked, adding, "Which law assigns a role of mediator to a general?"
Advocate Imanul Rahim, the counsel for the petitioner Rana Abdul Qayyum contended before the bench that under the Army Act, there is no provision that any army person can become a negotiator, facilitator or guarantor in any case, what to talk about the case of terrorism between protestors and state.
The agreement contains signatures of Ahsan Iqbal, Interior Secretary Arshad Mirza, TLYRA leader Khadim Hussain Rizvi, two other leaders of the TLYRA and Major General Faiz Hameed who facilitated in the matter.
Justice Siddiqui observed, "Where is their Radd-ul-Fasaad now? Did they not see any Fasaad (anarchy) in this protest?" He further said that this was a proof of the 'military's involvement.' Justice Siddique said while addressing Ahsan Iqbal that the administration has the right to call in the army to control an emergency situation and that the military is bound to comply with.
Responding to the court's remarks, Ahsan Iqbal submitted that during the protests and operation in Islamabad, the country's internal security was at risk, saying a conspiracy was hatched to show that a nuclear-state is failing. He said that an agreement was reached with the protesters to bring the country out of those circumstances.
Justice Siddiqui observed as to why signature of the chief commissioner Islamabad and inspector general of Islamabad police were not put on the agreement, saying the police and the administration have been embarrassed. He remarked that the institutions are destroying the state in a bid to make each other look bad.
While talking about the army's role, Justice Siddiqui said, "You are supporting the impression that the army is the cure for all illnesses." Justice Siddiqui categorically observed that he knew that such remarks could cost him his life or add him to the list of missing persons.
While giving advice to army to remain within its constitutional limits, Justice Siddiqui plainly said that the army's role of mediation between the law violators and law enforcing agencies is unacceptable.
Expressing serious reservations on the terms of agreement and mannerism in which it arrived, the court order said the government has to satisfy the court about constitutional role of armed forces and an acknowledgment by the government/executive of the country regarding role of armed forces as an arbitrator. Justice Siddiqui issued directives to Attorney General for Pakistan to appear in person to assist the court on this point on the next hearing on December 4.
The court also sought a report from the ICT chief commissioner about conduct of clearance operation and reasons of its failure while Anwar Ali, Joint Director General Intelligence Bureau, was asked to submit a report that from where protestors of sit-in brought guns to fire shells of tear gas, masks to insulate themselves against teargas, grenades, weapons and other instruments.
Ali has also been asked to submit a report showing reasons of failure of operation of November 25 and aid provided to protestors, when the ICT police had almost cleared Faizabad Interchange.
The court also sought a report from Intelligence Bureau about a viral audio wherein some high ranked army officer explaining army's point of view on sit-in to a personality by the name of Saqib.
However, Justice Siddiqui made it clear that the question raised by the court shall not be used as an excuse to dislodge/ disburse the protestors of sit-in as order to clear Faizabad Interchange is still in field. The court said in its verdict if protestors are bent upon carrying on sit-in, the federal government and ICT administration are required to persuade them to shift the sit-in to Parade Ground as an alternative place to proceed in terms of Sections 4&5 of Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. Later, the court asked the parties to come up on December 04.