By Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday issued contempt notices to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and every member of his federal cabinet, charging them with failing to comply with court orders in the contentious case of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani neuroscientist imprisoned in the United States.
Dr. Siddiqui, a highly educated neuroscientist, was convicted in 2010 by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on charges of attempting to murder US personnel in Afghanistan. She has since been serving her sentence at the Federal Medical Center Carswell in Texas. Her case has long stirred deep emotions in Pakistan, where many regard her as a symbol of national grievance against American justice, fueling demands for her release and repatriation.
Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq, presiding over the hearing, expressed exasperation with the federal government’s failure to submit a report on Dr. Siddiqui’s health, release, and potential return, information the court had demanded earlier this year. On July 12, the judge had warned that he would “summon the entire cabinet” if the government continued to delay. On Monday, he made good on that threat.
“The government has not responded with the reasons despite being directed to do so, it was in contempt, leaving me with no option but to issue a notice of contempt to the federal government,” Justice Ishaq wrote. He directed his office to initiate a contempt petition naming all federal cabinet members, including the prime minister, as respondents, and ordered them to file replies within two weeks. The next hearing is slated for the first working day after the judge returns from leave.
Justice Ishaq noted that authorities had appealed his earlier ruling, allowing amendments to a petition filed by Dr. Siddiqui’s sister, Dr. Fowzia Siddiqui, to the Supreme Court. “For whatever reason, the government’s case had not been taken up by the Supreme Court,” he observed, suggesting that the delay had compounded the executive’s failure to comply with his directives.
Justice Ishaq delivered a blistering critique of what he described as executive overreach into judicial affairs. “Ever since the demolition squad was catapulted into this high court after the 26th Constitutional Amendment, we have seen one heresy after another hurled at the edifice of justice, maiming it repeatedly and bringing it almost to its last breaths. This is yet another instance.”
He accused the government of manipulating the court’s schedule to obstruct justice, pointing specifically to the “weekly roster” controlled by the chief justice’s office.
The judge detailed an unusual personal grievance: he was supposed to be on leave this week, but his request to continue hearing the case had been stalled. “I was informed on Saturday that the application was duly moved but the file remained on the table of the chief justice, who did not find even 30 seconds to sign it,” he said. While he stopped short of alleging outright conspiracy, he hinted at deliberate interference. “Whether that was by design or oversight, I cannot say for sure,” he wrote, “but given the manner in which the roster of judges has been used as a tool for the desired outcome in specific cases, and given the government’s stiff opposition to do what is right and to stand by the daughter of the nation at the critical juncture of the motion before a US court, I may be forgiven for thinking that it was the former.”
Justice Ishaq framed the episode as part of a pattern of administrative meddling. “The machinations of the executive appeared elsewhere, in the form of controlling the proceedings of this court through its roster,” he said, calling it “yet another instance of the reproachable use of the administrative power to shackle the exercise of independent judicial authority.”
“The imperatives of justice shall not be defeated by such petty means. To the extent I can, I will exercise my judicial authority to the end of upholding the dignity of the high court and the justice it dispenses.”
Imran Shafiq, the lawyer representing Dr. Fowzia Siddiqui, appeared before the court alongside former senator Mushtaq Ahmed. Shafiq expressed skepticism about the government’s tactics, noting that if it truly sought a stay. “They would have formed a new bench by now.”
Addressing the judge directly, he added, “We know how the court functions. Your order is there, the case is being heard today.” When pressed on why he had not taken the case to the Supreme Court, Shafiq replied, “Because Justice Mansoor Ali Shah is there,” implying that the current judicial roster might not favor his client’s cause. “The case will only be filed when the roster of judges changes,” he said.
Justice Ishaq, meanwhile, underscored the case’s urgency. Though his leave was set to begin Monday, he insisted on hearing the matter. “Even if a judge wants to, they cannot work during holidays,” he remarked wryly. “Once again, administrative power has been used for judicial power.” He added, “I still heard the case because of its nature and importance.”
Dr. Siddiqui’s plight resonates deeply in Pakistan, where her supporters argue that she was unjustly convicted and subjected to harsh treatment. The government’s apparent reluctance to act, particularly its failure to sign an amicus brief in a related US court motion, has fueled accusations of indifference. The dispute also carries international weight, testing Pakistan’s willingness to confront the United States over a figure many here see as a “daughter of the nation.”
Copyright © 2021 Independent Pakistan | All rights reserved
