ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) Wednesday directed the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and other relevant authorities to submit a report before the court explaining whether the court orders were violated during May 25 Islamabad riots.
The directives were issued in a written order on the plea filed by the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) against the government’s decision to block roads to stop PTI’s “Azadi March”.
In the written order, the court also said it was “disappointed” to note that riots took place in the federal capital despite its order to create a balance between both sides.
“This balance was recorded in good faith by the Court whilst trusting the representations made on behalf of the two opposing parties before it. We are disappointed to note that the bona fide effort made by the Court was disrespected,” the apex court said.
The court said by acting upon assurances given on behalf of the top leadership of PTI and issuing directions to the government, its order created a balance between the mutual rights and obligations of the protesting people, the ordinary public, and the duties of the state.
The SC said it passed the order — by trusting the representations made and assurances given to the court — to create harmony between the two opposing sides for the sake of protecting the public interest and the constitutional rights of the people.
“In the present case, to say the least, the moral high ground held by the parties has diminished because public rights, interests, and property of the disinterested public have been breached and damaged badly,” the SC said.
Nevertheless, there remains the lurking question of whether the responsibility for the events of yesterday evening comprising reckless acts of mob anger can be blamed upon the senior leadership of the PTI, the top court said.
“So far there is no evidence or allegation that such acts were committed on the instigation of any party or happened randomly. At its most elementary level, the PTI leader appears to have assured the holding of a political rally at the G-9/H-9 ground and therefore not to assemble and sit in another venue including at D-Chowk in G-5 Islamabad.”
However, the court noted, that the attorney-general claims that the PTI workers and supporters moved forward to the D-Chowk area in response to the call made by their leader.
At this stage therefore it is directed that the IGP ICT, the chief commissioner ICT, the secretary Ministry of Interior, the director-general Intelligence Bureau, and the director-general ISI shall file reports answering, the following questions within a week:
- At what time did Imran Khan make the announcement for party workers to reach D-Chowk?
- When, where, and how did the crowd cross the barricade to enter a hitherto closed area?
- Was the crowd entering the Red Zone organized or supervised or did it move randomly?
- Were there any acts of provocation or breach of assurance by the Government?
- Was any action or treatment meted out by the ICT police against the protesters disproportionate to the actual or perceived wrong committed by the protesters?
- How many protesters managed to enter the Red Zone? Which security arrangements, if any, were relaxed by the Executive authorities? Whether any security barrier cordons were broken or breached by protestors? Did any protestor/party worker reach the G-9/ H-9 ground?
- How many civilians were injured/killed/ hospitalized/arrested?
Moreover, in a separate note, Justice Yahaya Afridi said he disagreed with Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial that there is no credible material before the SC for initiating independent contempt proceedings against Khan, who allegedly disobeyed the court’s order.
The justice quoted Khan’s statement after the court order: “Wherever Pakistanis are, there is good news: the Supreme Court has issued an order that there will be no hurdles and no one will be arrested. This is why I want all Pakistanis to come out of their homes today evening; people in Islamabad and Rawalpindi should try their best to reach D-Chowk because I will reach there within one-and-a-half-hour.”
The justice said in light of Khan’s statement, the court should issue a notice to the ousted prime minister seeking an explanation on why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.
