IHC terms Faizabad dharna agreement unlawful

ISLAMABAD: Justice Shaukat Aziz of Islamabad High Court noticed that the terms of Faizabad agreement are in contradiction with the regulation of the land.

The unmarried pass judgement on bench used to be listening to the Faizabad dharna case.

On remaining listening to, Justice Shaukat had lashed out on the executive for succumbing to the protesters force and wondered military’s position in brokering the deal.

Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf knowledgeable the courtroom that the Supreme Court has taken suo moto realize of the topic. The AG sough time from the courtroom for submission of a complete record on this regard.

Petitioner pleaded the courtroom that his case isn’t like what’s being heard within the apex courtroom. My consumer used to be abducted and crushed up by the protesters, whilst the militants have been passed out money. On this, the IHC pass judgement on stated that we all know more information than you. Referring to the agreement, Justice Shaukat noticed that the state surrendered prior to the protesters. There’s not anything lawful in it, he famous.

The executive will have to take the topic to the parliament and convene a joint consultation of each the homes to speak about it.

Last Monday, the IHC got here exhausting at the army over the arguable agreement with Khadim Hussain Rizvi-led birthday celebration.

Under what authority a serving primary common had signed the agreement as an arbitrator, he requested. “The military officials keen to take part in politics will have to first go back their weapons to the state, take retirement after which sign up for politics.”

The pass judgement on stated: “Besides quite a few critical objections to the terms of agreement, probably the most alarming is that Major General Faiz Hameed put signatures as the only thru whom the agreement arrived. It could also be very ordinary that efforts of General Qamar Javed Bajwa, Chief of Army Staff, were stated. This courtroom has critical reservations concerning the terms of agreement and mannerism during which it arrived; then again, the government has to meet the courtroom concerning the constitutional position of the defense force and an acknowledgment by the government/government of the rustic in regards to the position of defense force as an arbitrator”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *