Missing people: SC orders govt to submit plan


ISLAMABAD, June 27: The Supreme Court has asked for the government’s plan on the recovery of missing persons which the latter is expected to submit on July 1.Attorney General Muneer A. Malik is likely to submit a comprehensive plan to the apex court aimed at addressing complaints against enforced disappearances. The plan may envisage opening of a cell in the AG’s office for ensuring implementation of the court’s orders in cases related to missing persons.

A three-judge SC bench headed by Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja that had taken up the issue of enforced disappearances expressed dissatisfaction over non-registration of cases against officials of law-enforcement agencies.

If the government did not want to implement the decisions of the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances (CIED) the commission should be disbanded, Justice Khawaja observed, referring to recommendations made in a CIED report.

According to media reports, the CIED has recommended filing of criminal cases against 117 officials serving in the police department, Frontier Constabulary, Frontier Corps, Intelligence Bureau and Inter Services Intelligence (ISI).

About one Mohammad Jamil, who mysteriously disappeared in 2011, the apex court was informed on Thursday that CIED had recommended to the Rawalpindi police to register cases against officials of spy agencies within two weeks since there was sufficient material that Jamil had been taken away by intelligence agencies.

On June 4, the court was told that police had dispatched on May 28 to the directorates general of the ISI and the Military Intelligence a production order for Jamil.

Similarly, referring to the case of another missing person, Naveedur Rehman, the bench was informed that the commission on June 10 had recommended to the interior ministry that a case be registered against some serving army officials within two weeks.

On June 11, the MI submitted a reply in which it said that no court and the police had any jurisdiction to proceed against any serving army officer under the Army Act, 1952.

The court is expected to consider the MI’s reply next week.