The Islamabad High Court has ordered live coverage of all missing persons cases, including that of missing poet Ahmed Farhad. The court has also summoned several government officials including intelligence officers on the next hearing.
The court, in a written order issued by Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, summoned the Federal Law Minister, the Sector Commanders of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Military Intelligence (MI), the Director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), the Defense Secretary, and the Interior Secretary to appear in person on May 29th.
The court’s order, spanning eight pages, also mandated that the Sector Commanders of ISI and MI, along with the Director of IB, appear in person on May 29th. The court further summoned the Interior Secretary and the Defense Secretary. Additionally, the Law Minister and the Law Secretary were summoned as court assistants.
The court directed to submit a written report to the Registrar Office if the missing person is found before the next hearing.
Despite the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) restrictions, Justice Kayani allowed electronic media to report on Ahmed Farhad’s case.
IHC judge bans intelligence agencies’ personnel entry to courtroom
Law Minister calls IHC comments in abduction case ‘shocking’
Poet abduction case: IHC summons secretary defence and interior, slams intelligence agencies
According to the written order, journalist Hamid Mir informed the court about PEMRA’s restrictions on electronic media. The Attorney General clarified that the court could order reporting in any case it deemed appropriate.
The court deemed the case significant and recognized the public’s concern. The court also directed the investigation officer to record the statement of the ISI Sector Commander under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Attorney General informed the court that the missing poet has not yet been found and that he is in contact with intelligence agencies for his recovery. He requested more time to locate Ahmed Farhad.
The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the Attorney General had assured the court of recovery during the previous hearing. He further stated that state institutions have failed to recover the missing person and that his life is at further risk.
The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the state’s assurances cannot be trusted. The police reported that geo-fencing has been implemented and that they will soon be able to locate the relevant location and individuals.
